YOU WANTED BIG GOVERNMENT – YOU GOT IT

4 comments

Posted on 19th May 2013 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , , ,

The liberal MSM isn’t even scratching the surface regarding this IRS abuse of power. Chris Matthews has a tingle in his balls now. MSNBC will be declaring it is time to move on to more important issues like the fake sequester crisis and the fake gun crisis.

This Is Your Brain on Big Government

The dangers of America’s bloated, bullying state are inescapable.

 By   Deroy Murdock
If Obama’s Rose Parade of scandals gives you a headache, here’s why: This is your brain on Big Government.The deteriorating developments on Benghazi, the IRS, the Justice Department’s Associated Press probe, health secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s Obamacare shakedown, and the “Affordable” Care Act’s unaffordability all offer a vivid, daily tutorial on the costs and pitfalls of unlimited government. The dangers of America’s bloated, bullying state are inescapable.

Big Government often hammers its foes.

As horrified Americans have learned, the IRS targeted at least 471 conservative organizations for tough treatment. As the IRS’s inspector general explained, these included self-identified “Tea Party” and “patriot” groups and those “focused on government spending, government debt, taxes, and education on ways to ‘make America a better place to live.’” The IRS reportedly approved zero tea-party tax-exemption applications between February 2010 and May 2012. Across 27 months of malign neglect, some applicants abandoned their ambitions.

Meanwhile, the IRS inappropriately asked these groups for donors’ lists, their public-policy opinions, and the names of board members’ relatives who might seek public office.

A chilling Politico story explains that a “special unit” at the IRS has scrutinized Jewish institutions. It asked one: “Describe your organization’s religious belief system towards the land of Israel.” A pro-Israel group called Z Street complains that the IRS inquired whether its activities “contradict the Administration’s public policies.”

Big Government usually helps its friends.

“As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with obviously liberal names were approved in as little as nine months,” USA Today reported Tuesday. These included Bus for Progress and Progress Florida.

According to the Daily Caller’s Charles C. Johnson, the Barack H. Obama Foundation — directed by Abongo Malik Obama, the president’s half-brother and best man at his wedding — filed IRS Form 990s for 2008 through 2010 in May 2011. It then scored 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status on June 26, 2011, retroactive to April 30, 2008. The reputedly Virginia-based foundation won this valuable designation without registering with state authorities. Evidently, IRS officials did not care that, as the Daily Caller stated, Abongo Obama “was accused of being a wife beater and seducing the newest of his twelve wives while she was a 17-year-old school girl.”

IRS also sent ProPublica, a liberal news organization, the confidential, unapproved nonprofit applications of nine conservative groups. ProPublica redacted financial information and then published six of these forms.

A pro-traditional-matrimony group called the National Organization for Marriage claims that the IRS gave copies of its tax documents to the pro-gay-marriage Human Rights Campaign. NOM says that HRC used those leaked documents to slam NOM and a donor identified therein: Mitt Romney.

IRS wants to hire 1,954 new agents to enforce 47 different provisions of Obamacare. Combine these political leaks with the electronic medical records that doctors and insurers soon must render unto Obama’s bureaucrats. Imagine an exposé on conservative activists who use Viagra. Why not out a rising GOP star whose psychotherapist treats her exotic sex fantasies? Far-fetched? Not after this week. Indeed, 15 IRS agents are being sued in California court for allegedly swiping without a search warrant the medical records of some 10 million Americans in March 2011.

“It is unprecedented in recent history, the amount of responsibility the IRS is being given in an area that most people don’t think of as an IRS function,” Treasury inspector general J. Russell George told the House Appropriations Committee last March 5. “This is going to lead to problems, sir.”

[UPDATE: In a story that morphs more quickly than one can keep up with it, this morning brings the staggering news that Sarah Hall Ingram, the manager of the IRS office that targeted these center-right organizations, was promoted to run the IRS division that is implementing Obamacare. It is beyond outrageous that this secret policewoman — whose actions were at least execrable, if not illegal — would get within three time zones of any American's health-care data. She should be sacked before lunch and seriously considered for prosecution.]

Big Government overreaches.

On national-security grounds, the Justice Department justifies snatching two months of phone records associated with the Associated Press. This includes 20 office, home, and cell numbers. Justice appears to be investigating a leak related to al-Qaeda’s attempt to bomb a U.S.-bound airplane in 2012. However, Justice is using a paint roller where a fine brush might do. It evidently ran roughshod over its own guidelines, which require a more limited search, and only after requesting such records.

“The normal course of business is very narrow and very tailored to a particular individual’s phone records,” former attorney general John Ashcroft’s then-spokesman Mark Corallo told Fox News. “The idea that they would do two months — grab everything — in several bureaus is truly stunning and disgraceful.” Former attorney general Michael Mukasey worries that Justice might have been “looking more broadly to discourage people to talk to reporters.”

Justice’s extraordinary steps to plug national-security leaks would be more credible had the Obama administration not gushed like a fire hydrant after Seal Team Six killed Osama bin Laden. The CIA and Pentagon gave Academy Award–winning director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal access to classified materials and facilities as they prepared to shoot Zero Dark Thirty, the Oscar-nominated film about the bin Laden raid.

Administration blabbing exposed the name of a Pakistani doctor who helped U.S. intelligence gather DNA evidence that verified bin Laden’s presence in the compound where he was shot. Having been unveiled by Washington, that physician now is spending 30 years in a Pakistani prison. While addressing the March 22, 2009, Gridiron Dinner, joking Joe Biden let slip the classified location of the vice-presidential “undisclosed location.” Instead of gathering phone records, perhaps Justice officials should deploy duct tape across the mouths of indiscreet Obama staffers.

Big Government drives costs skyward.

Obama’s laughably titled Affordable Care Act will trigger individual health-insurance “premium increases of nearly 100 percent on average, with potential highs eclipsing 400 percent,” the House Energy and Commerce Committee reports. “Meanwhile, small businesses can expect average premium increases in the small group market of up to 50 percent, with potential highs over 100 percent.”

To make matters worse, HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius improperly and perhaps illegally is asking health insurers and other companies she regulates to contribute money to private nonprofits that will enroll uninsured Americans in Obamacare.

It would be mighty sad if something happened to that pretty, little HMO of yours. So, how much are ya gonna donate?

Big Government lies through its teeth.

Once public servants conclude that the public serves them, they soon hold the people in contempt. At that point, why bother to tell the people the truth?

Thus, Obama stood before the White House press corps on May 13 and declared about Benghazi: “The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.” However, Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler noted that Obama broadly denounced “terror” just after Benghazi, but refused to call that attack an act of terrorism. Then, over the next two weeks — on 60 Minutes, Univision, The View, Late Show with David Letterman, and before the United Nations — Obama cited that now clearly irrelevant anti-Muslim video as well as his uncertainty in light of ongoing investigations. But he did not pin Benghazi on an act of terrorism.

This earned Obama four out of four Pinocchios, the Washington Post’s distinction for big-time lies.

“What we see emerging here is a pattern, a culture, a culture of intimidation, of hardball politics that we saw both on the campaign trail and now through the apparatus of government,” Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) told the Senate Wednesday. “These are the tactics of the Third World.”

Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News Contributor, a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service, and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

 

SHOWING THEIR TRUE COLORS

8 comments

Posted on 20th December 2012 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , , ,

 The children slaughtered in Connecticut by a drugged up mental defective haven’t even been put into the ground yet and Obama is convening a gun banning convention in Washington DC today. Hysterically, the Philadelphia Chief of police is headed down to provide his brilliant insight. Meanwhile, we enter the final week of 2012 and Philly will finish the year with around 330 homicides, the highest since 2007.  Philadelphia has the toughest gun laws in the state. I’m sure if we ban guns, the lowlife scumbags in North Philly and West Philly will abide by the new rules. Maybe a few NO GUNS ALLOWED signs will work. Doctor Sowell does his usual fantastic job poking holes in the left wing liberal storyline. I’m sure he hasn’t been invited to Washington DC for his thoughts on the matter. We wouldn’t want any divergent points of view.

If you had any remaining thought that the Mainstream media in this country was impartial and just journalists reporting the facts, you are badly mistaken. This past week was probably an eye opener for anyone with critical thinking skills. The propaganda and misinformation is being screeched over the airwaves, in Op-Eds and by Cartoonists across the land. The dead children were barely cold before Bloomberg, Obama, and the left wing do-gooder control freaks on MSNBC, CNN and the rest of the liberal propaganda machines began spewing their standard storyline. This tragedy will not go to waste. Maddow, Matthews and Shultz were probably high fiving as the news reports came in. There was a tingle up their legs.

I always knew the press had a liberal bias, but this tragedy has revealed the true colors of these faux journalists. It appears that 90% of the mainstream media has a liberal agenda and is nothing but a mouthpiece for the government assuming more and more control over every aspect of our lives. When it became clear that the murderer was a drugged up psychopath, just like the previous mass murderers, the MSM dutifully trotted out the mouthpieces for the drug industry and the psychology industry to deny that his mental illness and their drugs had anything to do with it. Corporate media helping corporate advertisers helping bought off politicians.

There will be new laws. There will be new regulations. There will be new rules. There will be new paperwork and bureaucrats and police. The mindless sheep will be surveyed and they will beg for gun control. Obama will have a grand signing ceremony surrounded by the families of the dead children. Crime rates will go higher. Homicides will go higher as the criminals will know that their victims won’t be armed. The do-gooders and the MSM will call for more laws to save the sheeple.

And so it goes.

 

Invincible Ignorance

by Thomas Sowell

Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of “gun control” advocates?

The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.

If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.

Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.

When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.

 

The few counter-examples offered by gun control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest talking point is that Britain has stronger gun control laws than the United States and lower murder rates.

But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries – and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun control laws than the United States. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of that time.

 

In the middle of the 20th century, you could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked. New York, which at that time had had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, still had several times the gun murder rate of London, as well as several times the London murder rate with other weapons.

Neither guns nor gun control was the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference.

Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun control laws, on both sides of the Atlantic, have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals.

In Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons in Britain are not put behind bars. The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms.

In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s – after decades of ever tightening gun ownership restrictions – there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies.

Gun control zealots’ choice of Britain for comparison with the United States has been wholly tendentious, not only because it ignored the history of the two countries, but also because it ignored other countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.

You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem – including people who are determined to push gun control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts.

There is innocent ignorance and there is invincible, dogmatic and self-righteous ignorance. Every tragic mass shooting seems to bring out examples of both among gun control advocates.

Some years back, there was a professor whose advocacy of gun control led him to produce a “study” that became so discredited that he resigned from his university. This column predicted at the time that this discredited study would continue to be cited by gun control advocates. But I had no idea that this would happen the very next week in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

December 18, 2012

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His Web site is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page.

 

GOTTA LOVE NIALL FERGUSON

13 comments

Posted on 21st August 2012 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , ,

I don’t agree with Niall on every issue, but anyone who kicks Obama and Krugman in the balls on a regular basis is OK in my book. The liberal bias of the press is revealed for all to see when someone prominent speak the truth.

 

Niall “Hit The Road Barack” Ferguson Responds To The “Liberal Blogosphere”

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Tyler Durdenon 08/21/2012 13:41 -0400

Two days ago, historian Niall Fergsuon had the temerity to voice a personal opinion, one which happens to not exactly jive with the rest of the media’s take on current events, on the cover page of Newsweek (Newsweek is still in print?) titled, succinctly enough, “Hit the road Barack: Why we need a new president.” The response was fast, furious, and brutal, particularly emanating from what Ferguson has dubbed the “liberal blogosphere.” Naturally in an election year, said blogosphere has much CPM-generating rumination to do (after all who knows what happens to all those ad revenues if the US corporate base implodes and all that cash on the sidelines stays there due to “policy uncertainty”), so Ferguson merely provided the chum in the water (once the time comes to pick up the calculators again after the presidential election, things will immediately quiet down but until then there is, sadly, at least two more months of ever rising cacophony). So did Ferguson back off having said his piece? Hell no. In fact, he has just made sure that the “liberal blogosphere” is will be burning the midnight oil for weeks to come engaged in completely meaningless point-counterpoint between itself and the historian, when, in reality nothing changes the simple fact that come August 2016, the US will have a simply idiotic 130%+ debt/GDP completely independent of who is in the White House, or in other words, there very well may not be another presidential election. For now, however, we have much needed bread and circuses. Below is Ferguson’s just released interview from Bloomberg TV in which he responds to the salient accusations that have been leveled at him (a more essayistic version can be found here).

http://bloom.bg/PSYBrH

Ferguson on whether he’s surprised by the response to his story:

“No because the liberal blogosphere has a very tried and tested method of attacking an argument it disagrees with. That’s what has happened in this case. The first tactic is to ignore completely the arguments of the piece. The second is then to engage in nitpicking and claim to be fact checking when in fact all you’re offering is a series of alternative opinions. And then you round it off by making hysterical calls for the office resignation. This is such a tried and tested method and I was fully expecting it. The usual suspects, led of course by Paul Krugman, have obliged. But they have not addressed any of the arguments I have made in the piece so I will dismiss them pretty briskly today.”

On why it makes sense to compare the net cost of the Affordable Care Act vs. the gross cost:

“The critics are the ones splitting hairs. It absolutely clear what the CBO has said, which is the costs of the ACA will not be met by new sources of revenue. They will only be met, in full, if the cost of Medicare ceases to grow at around 4%. In fact, that rate of growth will have to be halved if that is to be the case. You have to distinguish here between the direct sources of revenue created by ACA and the indirect way the CBO says it will not increase the deficit. By the way, if you go to the CBO’s long-term forecast for health spending, just take Medicare from 3% of GDP all the way up if you go to the very end of their forecast in the 2080s, to something around 13%. Either that will require a substantial increase in taxation, which is another thing President Obama pledged would not happen, or it will increase the deficit. I really do not think there is any middle ground there. This is really quite unambiguous. Krugman is being disingenuous. And sadly, my old friend Andrew Sullivan does not really understand the issue that well, which is clear from his recent post.”

On acknowledging that Obama and his team could not have foreseen how bad the economy would be:

“Right. I say that. That is why this is a classic storm in a blogger’s teacup. The point of the piece is not to go through the economic record and say, you see, he did not produce an economic miracle. I think that is not a reasonable standard. The point of the piece is to say, under those very difficult circumstances, how effective was the president as the head of the executive branch. The core of the argument, which not one of my critics has address, is that he did not manage well his economics team. More seriously, he delegated the legislation. He delegates the detail on the key issues: stimulus, health care and financial reform to his own party in Congress. We should really talk about Pelosicare, not Obamacare. That’s the key issue. It’s not about how the economy performed. We all know this was a tremendously difficult inheritance. It is about how he has performed as the leader of the executive branch and I feel it is very clear he has fallen short.”

“What I say that it is not that we should judge him as an economist. We should judge him on the promise of effective leadership and decisive change. If you assess him as a leader, not as an economist, I think it is not an impressive record. That is really the sad truth.”

On how Obama scores as a leader compared to past presidents:

“I think a fair comparison, if you accept the argument that this is more like a depression than an ordinary post war recession, would be how does he compare with Franklin Roosevelt. It is clear if you look at the economy or the boldness of the policy response, that it is not in any way of a comparison favorable to Mr. Obama. Roosevelt had a far more decisive grip on his own party and a far greater mastery of the detail of the New Deal legislation. The other point which we have not touched on is a crucial point: how effective is President Obama as a commander in chief. I think there are two points here which are absolutely crucial. The first is the really serious mishandling of what we have come to call the Arab spring, but is more understood as the general revolution in the Middle East going back to Iran in 2009, if not Iraq with Saddam Hussein. The other point is that there’s not been a coherent strategy on China. The single biggest challenge this country faces is China, which will be a larger economy according to the IMF in four years’ time. That seems to be the things the critics to not want to engage—that there has not been a coherent strategy in the White House. Really, since Barack Obama entered it.”

On how he can be sure that companies will invest and hire in a Romney/Ryan administration:

“Of course, we cannot be sure about anything of that sort. What we do know is that both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are committed to raising the growth rate and it is achieving higher growth that is the key to solving most of the domestic economic issues. Remember, we were promised back in the 2010 financial year budget financial growth by this year of 4.6%. What we are actually going to get is more like 2%. What is encouraging for example about Paul Ryan’s path to prosperity is that it is fundamentally aiming at achieving growth using in some cases, Reaganite tactics which I think would be bound to have a positive impact on business confidence. If there were not a big bounce in business confidence after a Romney/Ryan victory, I would be very surprised indeed.”

On where the economy would be if Romney/Ryan were in the White House in January 2009:

“I wish we could put them in the White House in 2009. It seems to me the first thing you would not be dealing with would be the extremely time consuming exercise that we call the Affordable Care Act. That would not have been undertaken. If there had been a Republican administration, it would have been a John McCain administration rather than a Romney-Ryan administration. I certainly think there would have been significant economic pain. Would they have embarked on the same as fiscal strategy? The stimulus that the Democrats designed? No. This would have been a tax-cutting strategy rather than a spending strategy. That would have had a very different effect. What is certain is that policy would have been very different and foreign policy would have been radically different. It is hard to imagine John McCain sitting on his hands while people were in the streets of Tehran trying to overthrow one of the most dangerous regimes in the world. So, I think the differences would have been very significant.”

I’M GLAD THE LEFT ISN’T VITRIOLIC

62 comments

Posted on 12th January 2011 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, ,

As most people on this site know, I’m no George Bush fan. But lets get real with the Bullshit being spewed by the hate spewing left that control 80% of the MSM. Let’s face it – Fox News is the only right wing news station. The rest have a liberal bias. That is a fact.

How come they weren’t outraged when the left was hanging George Bush in effigy, comparing him to Hitler, calling him a murderer and putting up Wanted posters?

Now they create outrage because a 22 year old nutjob who couldn’t keep a job at McDonalds, listened to heavy metal music, played video games, and made delusional youtube videos killed a bunch of people. How many 22 year old losers do you know that are Tea Party members? The liberal hate spewing MSM already told us that the demographics of the Tea Party is a bunch of old white racist men. Why didn’t Jared kill a bunch of black people or immigrants?

The left wing rhetoric is laughable. Only one problem. The mental midgets that inhabit this country are soaking it all in. You can bet that polls will come out in the next week showing support for the Tea Party has plunged. This is how those in power keep their control.

Bush Protests