Is Congress Willingly Allowing Obama’s Ethics Violations?

February 27, 2013  by John DeMayo

The Internal Revenue Service has strict codes regulating the lawful operations of 501(c) (4) charities like “Organizing for Action (OFA)” the new Obama social welfare advocacy group that succeeded “Obama for America” the Presidents official 2012 re-election campaign. After a little tax code research, I have, come to the conclusion, that OFA and President Obama bear investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives for not only potential ethics transgressions but for alleged U.S. tax law violations.

IRS regulations state: 501(c)(4) non-for profit organizations (i.e. Organizing for Action) must be operated “exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.” 501 (c)(4) groups are not prohibited from participating in campaigns or elections as long as they serve the goal of “social welfare.”

I would think that President Obama, educated man that he is, understands the concept of “social welfare,” but maybe not, given social welfare requires knowledge of social welfare’s economic origins. After all, economics is a subject that Obama has had little regard for unless it requires blindly signing legislation that redistributes Americans income to his constituency.

Even if we allow for Liberal Democrat’s idealistic fantasies touting future economic benefits from legally owned gun regulation—or what liberals may try to characterize as “social welfare” i.e. decreased gun violence in America—both reality and government crime statistics prove the Obama team wrong every day. U.S. Department of Justice statistics prove that violent crime, specifically gun related violent crime is decreasing, not increasing in America. Taking away guns or ammunition will have an adverse effect on social welfare and have a negative economic benefit.

Examples of this fact are found in major cities like Chicago—a city run by Democrat idealists for close to a century—a city buried in real “social welfare” problems like debt, unemployment, government dependency, failing schools, poverty, illiteracy, corruption, and gang violence. However, where are the economic benefits for the windy cities residents from Chicago’s strict gun laws?

Obama’s Organizing for Action may claim that gun and ammunition regulation—an infringement of 2^nd amendment freedoms and an ethical violation of Obama’s oath of office amounts to social welfare, but I would challenge the President to provide the data to back up his liberal assertions. They are lies propagated by a President who at best is stretching the truth and in reality is redefining U.S. tax law to service his political agenda, nothing more. No economic or “social welfare” benefit will be gained by eliminating or regulating legal gun ownership in U.S. communities. To the contrary, gun regulation will foster crime, and with it economic decline in American communities. Chicago’s rising crime and DOJ statistics prove this point, Obama’s Organizing for Action is violating IRS code with its anti-second amendment advocacy framed as social welfare, and it warrants investigation by Congress and the Internal Revenue Service.

It also warrants mentioning that federal and state anti-second amendment regulations cause job losses. Obama’s and liberal states Governors proposed gun control policies have many established gun and ammunition manufacturers actively considering relocating and/or downsizing. I suppose some liberals may consider this a form of “social welfare,” but I am almost positive soon-to-be unemployed workers at certain gun manufacturers would disagree.

Back in the 90s during the Clinton years, Congress charged Newt Gingrich, who was also harangued and vilified for his political activities involving a 501(c) (3) charity—accused of promoting political causes and candidates—with 84 separate ethics violations. Yet Newt Gingrich did not violate his oath of office to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution or commit a single crime. Eventually, reprimanded by Congress and viewed by his party as a political liability Gingrich succumbed to political pressures and resigned.

Today Organizing for Action is raising funds—from donors that do not require identification—to push President Obama’s second term agenda. Two days ago, it was publicly revealed that President Obama is granting White House meetings to donors and fundraisers that contribute 500 thousand dollars to his “Organizing for America” the Obama social welfare machine. In addition, it is been suggested that MSNBC is a major benefactor of OFA. Sounds like pay to play to me. Moreover, many view this as ethical government.

It may come as a surprise to some of you, but I have been a subscriber to President Obama’s campaign website, which is now the Organizing for Actions website, since Obama’s campaign began. Suffice it to say, I believe in keeping my enemies close. Every day I receive e-mails from OFA asking for volunteer assistance as well as financial support. These emails reference the importance of passing the Obama second term agenda in every communication. Specifically the agenda President Obama lies out in his 2013 State of the Union address.

Can someone, even a liberal explain the “social welfare” or economic benefit for America, if Gays are given Constitutional protections like same sex marriage? Will America experience an economic boom and historic job growth attributable to LGBT matrimonial bliss? Better yet, can someone explain the social welfare or economic benefit of abortion or reproductive rights that deny fathers the equal right to raise a child doomed to whimsical termination? No Obama second term agenda items provide a “social welfare” or economic benefit for Americans, only Obama’s Americans or Democrat voters, yet Obama’s OFA is busy raising anonymous contributions to promote Democrat candidate ideologies over Republican candidate positions.

Is this not, the same violation of ethics that took Newt Gingrich down?

For all of its obvious and documented ethics violations and potential IRS code abuses, President Obama’s self-serving Democrat loyal “Organizing for America” requires investigation. Get on the horn America; I think these allegations may have some teeth.

http://lastresistance.com/1481/is-congress-willingly-allowing-obamas-ethics-violations/

>> WND Commentary – Impeach Obama for treason <<

Copy and send this to your representative in Congress – Tell him/her to ACT!   Bold yellow font my emphasis   ”X”  NO EXCUSES -
Find your Congressman: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt

 BORDER BATTLELINES

Exclusive: Tom Tancredo says Benghazi amounts to giving ‘aid and comfort’ to enemy

by Tom Tancredo

Tom Tancredo is the founder of the Rocky Mountain Foundation and founder and co-chairman of Team America PAC.

The four American deaths in Benghazi are a direct result of decisions and actions by President Obama that undermine the national-security interests of the United States. Those deaths may well be only a foretaste of the catastrophe awaiting the United States if Barack Hussein Obama remains in office four more years.

As we all know, Obama may be removed by a vote of the people Nov. 6. But if not, if the lapdog media succeed in hiding his malfeasance and incompetence well enough for Obama to win a narrow victory at the polls, then Congress may summon the courage to exercise its constitutional duty to impeach and remove him.

Obama’s foreign-policy disasters have not been a major focus of the presidential race, and that is unfortunate. The grave national-security issues raised in the Benghazi fiasco cannot be easily or intelligently addressed in a 30-second television spot, but they are nonetheless critical to our future safety and well-being. Obama’s pro-Islamist policies are more than mere blips on the political radar screen.

In the view of many, Obama had earned impeachment even before the Benghazi tragedy of Sept. 11. His open abuse of power in making recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess, his open defiance of Congress in his administrative amnesty for 2 million illegal aliens, his misuse of “executive privilege” in withholding documents pertaining to the illegal Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal – those actions alone qualify as impeachable offenses under the Constitution.

However, if treason is added to the mix, Congress will find it hard to shirk its duty to impeach him. The many people who think those other offenses do not rise to the constitutional standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors” will not be so charitable with regard to the crime of treason.

But when does a foreign policy “blunder” cross the line into treason? Well, maybe when it is not a blunder at all but the entirely predictable consequence of a deliberate policy that invites attack on our embassies and indeed our homeland.

Concerned about the impact of illegal aliens on the United States? Don’t miss Tom Tancredo’s book, “In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security” – now just $7.95!

The word treason means a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance. Article III of the U.S. Constitution defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. If radical Islam is a self-declared enemy of the United States, as can be easily demonstrated, Obama has certainly given them aid and comfort: Most Americans will think that welcoming the Muslim Brotherhood into the White House and appointing Muslim Brotherhood members to important posts does in fact constitute “aid and comfort.”

If the Muslim Brotherhood is not an avowed enemy of the United States, what else should we call an organization that openly and officially calls for the replacement of the U.S. Constitution by Shariah law? Apparently, an Islamist armed to the teeth must carry an al-Qaida membership card to qualify for Obama’s distrust.

Here is the brute fact of the matter. The attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist act. Obama’s foreign policies and decisions not only left the consulate vulnerable to attack but in fact invited the attack – and then he blamed an unknown American film for the attack and turned a blind eye on the al-Qaida allied terrorists who were responsible.

Despite the establishment media’s best efforts to protect Obama from any fallout from the Benghazi deaths, we now know that Obama and his team lied about those events.

Obama lied when he said the attack on the consulate was a spontaneous act in response to an obscure film no one in Libya had yet seen. He knew differently. He lied when he said the Libyan embassy staff had not requested additional security for its Benghazi consulate. He lied in the weeks leading up to the Benghazi attack when he said al-Qaida had been “knocked back on its heels” and is no longer a threat to the United States.

Obama’s lies about the Benghazi attack and the four American deaths are lies told to cover up not State Department “incompetence” but the predictable consequences of policies of denial, neglect and stupidity toward our nation’s enemy, radical Islam.

But here is the most damning aspect Obama’s behavior. Obama is unwilling even today to name the enemy that has declared war on the United States and to deal forthrightly with that imminent threat. Our pro-Islamist president will not name Islamism, the Muslim Brotherhood and the government of Iran as enemies of the United States even though they have declared war on us and are engaged in numerous plots to bring death and destruction to the American homeland.

Why are we so reluctant to call this by its right name – treason?

The failure in Benghazi was more than a State Department failure to provide needed security for the embassy personnel in our Libyan outpost. That failure is bad enough, but it is only part of a larger betrayal. Additional security was denied to Benghazi consulate because doing so would have been an admission that eastern Libya was under the effective control of armed militias allied with al-Qaida. Making that admission would have undermined one of the pillars of Obama’s re-election.

When the attack was under way, military assistance that was only two hours away was denied. Today’s revelation by the CIA that it sent a four-person support team from the capital, Tripoli, does not answer the question of why military backup was denied and who denied it. Sending additional CIA support to the post was admirable but was too little and too late. Why was military support at AFRICOM – less than two hours distant – denied when it was available and ready to deploy? Did Secretary of Defense Panetta consult Obama in making that decision?

The many unanswered questions about Benghazi are unanswered for only one reason: Truthful answers would embarrass Obama and jeopardize his re-election. This is election fraud conducted not from Chicago but straight from the West Wing of the White House.

Thanks to a compliant media, the American people will not have those answers in time to make an informed choice on Tuesday. It will fall to the people’s representatives in Congress to find those answers. And when the full truth is known, Congress must consider removing Barack Obama for giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies – and that is treason against the United States.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/impeach-obama-for-treason/

I SENT THIS TO MY CONGRESSMAN. TO MAKE IT EASY, COPY AND PUT IT IN THEIR REPLY WINDOW UNDER THEIR TOPIC GOVERNMENT REFORM AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

ACTS OF TREASON.

This was spelled out eloquently on WND http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/impeach-obama-for-treason/
Appropriate excerpts:

The four American deaths in Benghazi are a direct result of decisions and actions by President Obama that undermine the national-security interests of the United States. Those deaths may well be only a foretaste of the catastrophe awaiting the United States if Barack Hussein Obama remains in office four more years.

Obama’s pro-Islamist policies are more than mere blips on the political radar screen.

His open abuse of power in making recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess, his open defiance of Congress in his administrative amnesty for 2 million illegal aliens, his misuse of “executive privilege” in withholding documents pertaining to the illegal Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal – those actions alone qualify as impeachable offenses under the Constitution.

Obama lied when he said the attack on the consulate was a spontaneous act in response to an obscure film no one in Libya had yet seen. He knew differently. He lied when he said the Libyan embassy staff had not requested additional security for its Benghazi consulate. He lied in the weeks leading up to the Benghazi attack when he said al-Qaida had been “knocked back on its heels” and is no longer a threat to the United States.

The word treason means a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance. Article III of the U.S. Constitution defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. If radical Islam is a self-declared enemy of the United States, as can be easily demonstrated, Obama has certainly given them aid and comfort: Most Americans will think that welcoming the Muslim Brotherhood into the White House and appointing Muslim Brotherhood members to important posts does in fact constitute “aid and comfort.”
My patience with Congress looking the other way is at an end. Quit being steers, and ACT!!!!

Day late and a Dollar short? – Obama impeachment bill now in Congress ( Published: 03/11/2012)

 I found this in another of their links about Al Sharpton. (I can barely stomach to name him, let alone do a blog on this tare)

Apparently this bill was stillborn.  How many times have I blogged about enough evidence to have “O” brought up on TREASON charges?  The bunch of steers in Congress, (2010 freshmen excluded from the analogy) may need to be recycled next election.   Plus the nerve of seeking U.N. “approval” when Congress is to be consulted… TO H with the U.N.

 Declares president’s use of military without approval ‘high crime, misdemeanor’

 

byDrew Zahn

Drew Zahn is a former pastor who cut his editing teeth as a member of the award-winning staff of Leadership, Christianity Today’s professional journal for church leaders.

 

 

Let the president be duly warned.

Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”

Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.

In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”

Read “The Case for Impeachment” and know why Obama has got to go before America is done for …

Get the bumper sticker that tells everyone to Impeach Obama!

In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”

“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].”

Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution.

Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer.

“Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

The exchange itself can be seen below:

The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows:

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

If you’d like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WND Daily Poll.

GOP Invertebrates? Primary issue of illegal immigration ignored.

So happens there are conservative Americans of hispanic descent who F’n would vote for a Candidate that proved he  “had a pair”  “X”

WND EXCLUSIVE

Savage to GOP candidates: Say this and you’ll win

“This is a primary issue … and none of them will talk about it”

Pointing to the Obama administration’s announcement yesterday of a de facto amnesty for hundreds of thousands of El Salvador nationals living illegally in the U.S., talk-radio host Michael Savage wondered aloud why the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination and the moderators of more than a dozen debates have virtually ignored the issue of illegal immigration.

“This is a primary issue in the United States of America, and none of them will talk about it,” Savage told his “Savage Nation” listeners last night.

“How can I get excited about an election … when there are certain topics of immense importance to the American people that are verboten?” he asked.

You’ve always known that “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”: Get Savage Solutions

The Department of Homeland Security announced yesterday that it will not force 215,000 El Salvadorans living in the U.S. illegally to return home because of a series of earthquakes in 2001. The agency said El Salvador “remains unable, temporarily, to handle adequately the return of its nationals.”

“He is going out full bore for the illegal alien vote,” Savage said.

Savage said that even if debate moderators such as left-leaning Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopolous of ABC News won’t raise the issue, the Republican candidates “have every opportunity to raise these questions whenever a camera is put near their face.”

“They could simply say, ‘You know, I’m outraged this morning the president granted de facto amnesty to 215,000 people from El Salvador. That’s a foul ball. He has to come to Congress for this. He is not a dictator.’

“That would win the election” for any candidate who would say that, Savage said.

But it’s clear, Savage said, that the candidates are afraid of the “Hispanic lobby.”

“Politicians are catering to them,” he said. “They would rather cater to an imagined illegal demographic than to a rock-ribbed conservative demographic.”

Savage recalled a dinner he had in December 2010 with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who won the New Hampshire primary last night after a narrow victory in Iowa.

Savage asked Romney why he didn’t strongly address the illegal alien problem. Romney acknowledged the problem but essentially said that no matter how you approach it, you’ll be labeled a racist.

Obama, meanwhile, according to Savage, “wants to make certain as many illegal aliens vote for [him] as possible, since most Americans have detached from the Good Train Obama.”

“They will not vote for this man again,” he said of American citizens. “They understand they’ve been lied to, that he’s in it for his own self and his party.”

“The Savage Nation” airs live Monday through Friday from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Eastern. It can be heard online through stations such as KSTE in Sacramento.

Taking a Bludgeon to the Constitution

Long ago I upset people by being so appalled at similar behavior, that I commented “435 reasons for a sniper rifle”.    I know I can’t take the law in my own hands;  however, treason is treason.  In time of war, being convicted of treason calls for a firing squad.  “X’

Posted on December 20, 2011 by qathy             [PAN member]

Today I went searching for a specific piece of legislation. It is a bill currently in committee in the House of Representatives. Imagine my dismay when I discovered that it includes a clause which says that the 11^th amendment does not apply to any lawsuits initiated by people complaining of infractions of the legislation.

Forgive me for my apparent stupidity, but how can Congress enact such legislation? If such a clause is included in this bill, how many others have the same clause? Why are we not aware that Congress is so blatantly pushing the Constitution aside?

For a long time I have known that Congress avoids the Constitution when it feels the need. Every entitlement program in existence would disappear in a flash if the Constitution prevailed. But I was not aware that any of the bills that created these programs included a clause which said, in essence, the Constitution is suspended with regard to this bill. I always thought they were simply finessing the programs and that they succeeded simply because nobody has yet mounted a successful attack on their Constitutionality.

This, situation, however, is different. This bill states in plain language that even a legislative dummy like me can understand. This bill says that 11^th amendment may not be used as a defense in lawsuits subsequent to this legislation.

In case you don’t have the amendments memorized, the 11^th amendment is about states’ rights. It enshrines the sovereignty of states with regard to the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. The 11^th amendment says:

“The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.”

By inserting a clause that says this amendment does not apply, the Congress says that the citizen from state A who objects to action in state B and sues on the basis of this law may sue state B without regard to the fact that the Constitution disallows such suits. Nothing in the Constitution forbids a citizen in state A from suing his own state for some infraction, but it does not permit him to cross state lines to lodge such a suit. Congress appears to have appropriated to itself some power we did not grant it in the Constitution, because it appears to believe that it can deny Constitutional rights to a state.

Notice that I have not commented on the central subject of the legislation. That is not the issue I am concerned about in this post. I am concerned about anything that dilutes the power of the Constitution to shape our government. We have a Constitution precisely because the federal government needs boundaries. Without limits applied to it, the federal government will overrun the states and reduce them to mere administrative units for federal power. It is appalling to see that this statement has been boldly inserted into a piece of legislation and nobody is worrying about it.

I am not sure how I find out if this clause is in any other bills or in existing laws. If it is, then I am really worried.

When our president stated recently that this form of government does not work and never has worked, I was appalled. I knew he believed it, but I thought he was still trying to fool us into believing something better of him. In the legislative clause which asserts that Congress can disallow a right which the Constitution grants to states, I see that our president is not alone in his belief that the Constitution is not a good thing, because it interferes with federal power. This is scary.

Just yesterday I listened to an interview with Stuart Varney. He said something very important. He said that when he came to the USA forty years ago, he was fleeing socialism. He is very disturbed to see that it is now arising in the US, the place he thought would be a haven from its onslaught. I feel the same way. I grew up knowing that we needed to defend ourselves from the USSR because we did not want to be engulfed by socialism. Now I feel that it is engulfing me, anyway.

What can a single outraged citizen do about this problem?

http://patriotdreams.patriotactionnetwork.com/2011/12/20/taking-a-bludgeon-to-the-constitution/

A BIT OF CHRISTMAS CHEERLESSNESS

Courtesy of Citizen Tom

 Posted on December 22, 2011by Citizen Tom

Following in the footsteps of a tradition as favored as a certain popular poem, Delegate Scott Lingamfelter reminds us once again of the consequences of failing to elect the best people we can.

T’was the Night of Our Gridlock

T’was the night before Christmas and all through DC;
The President and Congress just couldn’t agree;
Once again they are arguing about how to spend bucks;
Leaving no doubt among us that they’re all just nuts

“Extend unemployment!”, Obama demands;
“Pay for it first” is the House’s firm stand;
“More debt’s the way” says Reid in a fit;
“And a two month extension is all that you get”

“But the President wants a full year” says the House
“We all agree so let’s vote this bill out”;
“Well on second thought” Mr. Reid said with glee
“A two month deal is best politically?”

“If we go with a year, we’d end this big mess;
No more to argue, is that really best?
Then how can Obama beat up on your guys;
At the State of the Union when that time arrives?”

Says ol Dirty Harry, “It’s all about power;
If we lose the Senate, the libs will be sour”
Says the House with disgust, “make it a year!”
Give all the people a reason to cheer!”

“Prove to them now that you’re not a big jerk
Delay your vacation, let’s get down to work!”
“Delay our vacation?”, Reid says with surprise
“We’d rather the House be blamed and despised”

“Sure, a year would be best for all in the land;
But not for Obama, with whom we all stand”;
“If we yield to you”, say Reid with a sneer;
Barack’s State of the Union will fall on deaf ears”

“That just will not do with Elections at stake;
To heck with the people, two months you will take!”
So that’s where we stand, in good ol’ DC;
Watching our leaders be all they can be”

Which leaves me to wonder as I look to the sky;
“Hasten November” when I say good-bye
To Obama and Reid, who lead from behind;
While hard working families are left in a bind

Elections do matter, of that I am sure;
And if Obama returns, even more will be poor;
It’s time for real change, and don’t be in doubt;
That change will arrive when we vote this guy out!”

L. Scott Lingamfelter, December 2011

Amended Post – National Debt : Got your Hip Waders?

 

The debt recently passed the 15 Trillion mark.

Here is the gov’t revenue:
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-government-revenues
Federal Revenues Have More Than Tripled Since 1965

Overall tax revenues have risen despite a recent decline due to the recession. Congress cut income taxes and the death tax in 2001 and capital gains taxes and dividends in 2003, yet revenues continued to surge even after the tax cuts were passed.

INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS (2010): $2.15 trillion
So IF WE INSIST that -since 1000 billion = 1 trillion- Congress agree to QUIT more spending, use approximately 20% (400 billion per yr) to pay off the 15 T debt, and they agree; it would still take TWENTY YRS to cut the debt by eight trillion dollars. MOREOVER, THIS WOULD BE ONLY IF THERE WERE NO INTEREST ON THE DEBT.

PUNCHLINE:

Total interest on our national debt in fiscal 2010 was 395 billion.

Source: http://www.babylontoday.com/national_debt_clock.htm

ON THE DAY after the fiscal year closed – Oct 1, 2010 – the debt increased to 13.61 trillion – another 500 million, or HALF A BILLION dollars – in a day! How’s that for fiscal chicanery? Please don’t take my word for it. Run the numbers at the Treasury link for yourself.

SO – The time to act is not next year, not next fall, not next spring, but NOW.

To pay a significant amount toward the PRINCIPLE as well as the interest, we’re talking 800 BILLION PER YEAR; [80% of a TRILLION!] simply to cut the debt by 8 trillion and it will take twenty yrs IF WE ACT NOW.

Additionally, Congress needs to cut at least 10 of the bloated, useless government programs that act as giant leeches on the economy.

Any bets that our “fearless leaders” are up to the task?

Townhall Cartoons Ken Catalino – Nov 21, 2011

 

 

 

Zeros Tolerance: Debt Cracks $15,000,000,000,000 Mark

 

 Somebody get Rep. Jeb Hensarling an Ambien! If the Texas Republican can really “find $1.5 trillion of budget savings in [his] sleep,” start the lullabies. Roll in cots for the entire Super Committee–whatever it takes to make some deep and meaningful cuts to the deficit before this catastrophe keeps us all up at night. If the panel is serious about meeting next Wednesday’s deadline, members will have to find $10.4 billion in savings every hour for the next six days. (That number drops to $17 million an hour if they sprinkle the cuts over the next 10 years.) Either way, the task became even more urgent yesterday, when America hurled over the $15,000,000,000,000 debt mark. That’s $48,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country–just $2,000 less than our median household income!

Steven Landsburg tries to put the deficit in perspective in his “Short Econ Quiz” for Congress. “Suppose that year after year, you spend more than you earn. Which of the following could be paths back to fiscal sanity for your household? A) Spend less. B) Earn more. C) Stop at the ATM more often so you’ll have more cash in your pocket. Do we all understand why C is a really bad answer?” Apparently, the Hill does not. Even now, as the American economy careens wildly out of control, leaders aren’t even nibbling at the margins of what our country needs to cut.

Since President Obama took office, the debt has risen almost $4.5 trillion (41.5%), and Congress’s solution is leaving spending rates (including stimulus dollars) untouched! Both parties are trying to slow the rate of growth instead of eliminating the excess that got us here. If that’s Washington’s approach to fiscal solvency, then buckle up. As Daniel Horowitz points out (and Utah Sen. Mike Lee confirmed), the Super Committee doesn’t plan to cut one cent of spending. “The entirety of the $917 billion 10-year discretionary savings comes from reductions to the prodigal baseline… In fact, not only did we lock in the aforementioned unparalleled spending rates, we committed ourselves to add over $800 billion more in deficit spending.” And the Committee plans on paying for it–not by forgoing some luxuries, like Shrek-Themed Onion Promotion Campaigns–but by passing the invoice on to you!

“Raising taxes is nothing at all like earning income in [a typical household]. Instead, it’s a lot more like visiting the ATM… The government’s chief asset–in fact, pretty much its only asset-is its ability to tax people, now and in the future. The taxpayers are the government’s ATM. Make a withdrawal today, and there’s less available tomorrow.” If America is to find her way back to financial stability, conservatives will have to lead us there. That means accepting nothing less than real cuts, strong caps, and a balanced budget amendment that locks Congress into the diet it so desperately needs–not the House gimmicks that won’t shed a dime.

Bill Introduced to Strip Citizenship of Americans Supporting Terror Abroad

 

A new bill introduced by Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman and several other members of Congress would strip the citizenship of Americans deemed by the government to be involved in terrorism.

Lieberman introduced the “Enemy Expatriation Act” Wednesday with Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown, Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Charlie Dent and Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Jason Altmire. The legislation would update federal law to revoke the citizenship of Americans involved in terrorism.

Currently, there are seven categories under federal law for which U.S. citizens can lose their citizenship. Existing expatriation law includes such acts as renouncing one’s citizenship or serving in the armed services of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S.

The new legislation would expand the list to include “providing material support or resources to a Foreign Terrorist Organization, as designated by the secretary of state, or actively engaging in hostilities against the United States or its allies.”

 

Post Continues on dailycaller.com

MY NOTE:  If the list is expanded to include  ”actively engaging in hostilities against the United States or its allies.” ;  In view of his actions toward Israel, we can use this to oust Obama!  LMAO  “X”