In Light of the Tragedy at a Newton, Connecticut Elementary School, the Obama Administration and several of his patsy Democrats in Congress are calling for stricter Gun Control measures. The facts are the shooter's mother legally obtained her firearms, was murdered by her psychotic son who then took her firearms to a school and murdered 20 children and six staff members. Even preventing future sales of certain semi-automatic rifles referred to by idiots as assault rifles will not prevent such a tragedy. Banning high capacity magazines will not prevent such a tragedy. This tragedy is the result of our Government's policy of not forcefully locking up psychotic individuals and others with a shown propensity towards violence. This tragedy is also the result of our Government's policy of prohibiting firearms on public school grounds by school Administration officials that are trained in the use of firearms.
The Bill of Rights is a wholly unnecessary document. All Power, Authority and Rights exist within the People except for those specifically ceded to the Federal Government in Article 1, Section 8. The Bill of Rights was written so that certain individuals could have in writing what their Rights were, and therefore support the Constitution, because they didn't trust the Government enough to believe that their Rights were secure without a Document stating so. This whole argument over what the 2nd Amendment means is a non sequitur. The Federal Government has no Authority to determine what firearms we can and cannot own. And to all the idiots out there calling certain semi-automatic rifles 'assault' rifles, please define what action on a semi-automatic rifle makes it an assault rifle?
"If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves." - Joseph "Barack Hussein Obama" Stalin
Friday, December 21, 2012
Friday, September 30, 2011
My fix for America's Economy
If we're ever going to fix this country and get things going again, we need to grow the Economy and that requires a few things. First and foremost we need to be competitive with the rest of the world starting with our tax policy. It doesn't help that the world has an average Corporate Tax Rate 10-15% less than ours. If we're going to be competitive globally, we need to have a globally competitive Corporate Tax Rate. We should drop our rate to 15% for two years and raise it 1% per year for the next five years for a total tax rate of 20%. This would provide an incentive for Corporations to repatriate foreign cash holdings now instead of later which could lead to the consumption of goods and services and therefore create new jobs. This lower rate will also make the US more attractive for foreign corporations to relocate here, i.e. new jobs. Secondly, we need to end the government practice of picking winners and losers, read prejudice, and eliminate all deductions, subsidies and credits from our Corporate Tax Code. Allow the free market to pick winners and losers and both consumers and producers will benefit.
The second part of reforming the tax code means ending the class warfare rhetoric of a progressive tax structure. Success should not be punished with an ever increasing burden that focuses a greater and greater percentage of the taxes paid to come from the wealthier. Our tax code should reflect fairness but should also be pragmatic and simple to understand. Americans waste billions of hours filing tax documents and billions of dollars hiring tax lawyers and accountants to ensure compliance. This is a dredge on our Economy as these hours and dollars could be spent on more productive means. Our tax code should be simplified to contain a flat rate of 20% with one deduction equivalent to the poverty level income, i.e. for a family of four the poverty level income for 2011 was $22,350. So an Individual making $100,000 would pay 20% x $77,650 = $15,530 in Federal Income Taxes. Currently an Individual making $100,000 and claiming one would pay approximately $18,951 in Federal Income Taxes; claiming a spouse and two children would drop Federal Income Tax owed to approximately $15,981. The only other deduction that should be retained is the deduction given for charity and there should be no cap. Capital Gains, Dividends, Interest, Alimony and Rent should all be treated as Income and taxed accordingly. As you can see, the net effective rate on $100,000 is only 15.5% however on $1,000,000 that net effective rate increases to 19.6%, so if you treasure the idea that the wealthier should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, they do. This system is simple and fair, and it eliminates government prejudice when it comes to income and how it's earned and taxed.
The third thing that needs to be addressed is Regulation. Regulation is essentially an additional cost on production because it requires compliance in order to meet Federal Government guidelines and mandates. Compliance often times means having the govt. approve what you're going to do before you do it, which means costly time delays when one has a production schedule to meet or construction that's delayed. Often times these guidelines and mandates are created by bureaucrats with no relevant experience in the field they're regulating. For example, the EPA has set regulations on how much dust a farmer can produce. Do they have any idea how a farmer can plow without creating dust in violation of their regulation? No, and they don't care except that they care the farmer has to comply with their regulation. I have no idea how many other ridiculous regulations exist out there but I'm sure the CEO's of Fortune 500 companies could come up with a slew of costly regulation. A regulatory agency that I think can be eliminated is the National Labor Relations Board which sued Boeing in order to attempt to stop them from opening a new billion dollar production facility as well as putting thousands of jobs in jeopardy because they felt they have a right to regulate where and how Boeing conducts its business operations. It's quite frankly none of their friggin' business and therefore these shenanigans call into question their existence.
If we want an environment friendly to job creation and economic growth as well as making America more of an attractive origin to do business and perhaps live, then this is a good start. But it's not going to happen so long as we have a Legislature and an Administration that believes it "costs" them to cut taxes. It doesn't cost them anything, it's not their money; it's ours and they're the burden, not us.
The second part of reforming the tax code means ending the class warfare rhetoric of a progressive tax structure. Success should not be punished with an ever increasing burden that focuses a greater and greater percentage of the taxes paid to come from the wealthier. Our tax code should reflect fairness but should also be pragmatic and simple to understand. Americans waste billions of hours filing tax documents and billions of dollars hiring tax lawyers and accountants to ensure compliance. This is a dredge on our Economy as these hours and dollars could be spent on more productive means. Our tax code should be simplified to contain a flat rate of 20% with one deduction equivalent to the poverty level income, i.e. for a family of four the poverty level income for 2011 was $22,350. So an Individual making $100,000 would pay 20% x $77,650 = $15,530 in Federal Income Taxes. Currently an Individual making $100,000 and claiming one would pay approximately $18,951 in Federal Income Taxes; claiming a spouse and two children would drop Federal Income Tax owed to approximately $15,981. The only other deduction that should be retained is the deduction given for charity and there should be no cap. Capital Gains, Dividends, Interest, Alimony and Rent should all be treated as Income and taxed accordingly. As you can see, the net effective rate on $100,000 is only 15.5% however on $1,000,000 that net effective rate increases to 19.6%, so if you treasure the idea that the wealthier should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, they do. This system is simple and fair, and it eliminates government prejudice when it comes to income and how it's earned and taxed.
The third thing that needs to be addressed is Regulation. Regulation is essentially an additional cost on production because it requires compliance in order to meet Federal Government guidelines and mandates. Compliance often times means having the govt. approve what you're going to do before you do it, which means costly time delays when one has a production schedule to meet or construction that's delayed. Often times these guidelines and mandates are created by bureaucrats with no relevant experience in the field they're regulating. For example, the EPA has set regulations on how much dust a farmer can produce. Do they have any idea how a farmer can plow without creating dust in violation of their regulation? No, and they don't care except that they care the farmer has to comply with their regulation. I have no idea how many other ridiculous regulations exist out there but I'm sure the CEO's of Fortune 500 companies could come up with a slew of costly regulation. A regulatory agency that I think can be eliminated is the National Labor Relations Board which sued Boeing in order to attempt to stop them from opening a new billion dollar production facility as well as putting thousands of jobs in jeopardy because they felt they have a right to regulate where and how Boeing conducts its business operations. It's quite frankly none of their friggin' business and therefore these shenanigans call into question their existence.
If we want an environment friendly to job creation and economic growth as well as making America more of an attractive origin to do business and perhaps live, then this is a good start. But it's not going to happen so long as we have a Legislature and an Administration that believes it "costs" them to cut taxes. It doesn't cost them anything, it's not their money; it's ours and they're the burden, not us.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Ungrateful Govt Union Thugs
In this Yahoo! Finance article, "Thousands of British schools will close and travelers will face long lines at airport immigration Thursday when three quarters of a million workers go on strike. The first test comes when 750,000 public-sector workers -- from teachers to driving examiners to customs officials -- walk out for the day, part of a growing wave of opposition to the Conservative led government's deficit-cutting regime of tax hikes, benefit curbs and spending cuts."
"The government insists everyone must share the pain as it cuts 80 billion pounds ($130 billion) from public spending to reduce the huge deficit, swollen after Britain spent billions bailing out foundering banks. It is cutting civil service jobs and benefits, raising the state pension age from 65 to 66, hiking the amount public sector employees contribute to pensions and reducing the payouts they get on retirement."
With Britain having faced a similar economic catastrophe spurned by the near collapse of the American Banking system, and having instituted a similar fix of propping up banks with low interest loans and easy money lending from its Central Bank, coupled with a loss in government revenue and increased deficits, one could anticipate the probable occurrence of Govt Unions reacting angrily to cuts in the United States. Oh wait, we've already seen it in Minnesota and New Jersey when the respective Governors took on Govt Unions. I might add that these Governors could also be classified as "Conservative".
It's no wonder Govt Unions usually get what they want, while they're "Public Servants" they also provide necessary functions such as teaching, police, fire fighters, public transportation, etc., so when they go on strike, all those services go unfulfilled creating an immediate need. It's unrealistic, in the US for example, to expect that while the private sector suffers unemployment at 9-something percent, even higher if you count the underemployed, the public servants take no raises but keep their jobs. Eventually if revenues fall enough, additional savings have to occur and most unions would rather keep members' jobs than see someone laid off for a benefit.
However, not Govt Unions, they don't want to give up anything and when you threaten to take away a previously promised benefit, despite changing economic circumstances from when that benefit was given, they go on strike causing everyone to feel their immediate need for the services they provide. This is unconscionable. This is why I believe if you have a govt. job you shouldn't be allowed to strike because your actions amount to blackmail. You already have the benefit of a secure job with little threat of layoffs and the pension you receive you know is good because it's backed by the govt. Ultimately Govt Unions need to recognize that they work for the taxpayer and if the taxpayer is taking a paycut, so should they.
"The government insists everyone must share the pain as it cuts 80 billion pounds ($130 billion) from public spending to reduce the huge deficit, swollen after Britain spent billions bailing out foundering banks. It is cutting civil service jobs and benefits, raising the state pension age from 65 to 66, hiking the amount public sector employees contribute to pensions and reducing the payouts they get on retirement."
With Britain having faced a similar economic catastrophe spurned by the near collapse of the American Banking system, and having instituted a similar fix of propping up banks with low interest loans and easy money lending from its Central Bank, coupled with a loss in government revenue and increased deficits, one could anticipate the probable occurrence of Govt Unions reacting angrily to cuts in the United States. Oh wait, we've already seen it in Minnesota and New Jersey when the respective Governors took on Govt Unions. I might add that these Governors could also be classified as "Conservative".
It's no wonder Govt Unions usually get what they want, while they're "Public Servants" they also provide necessary functions such as teaching, police, fire fighters, public transportation, etc., so when they go on strike, all those services go unfulfilled creating an immediate need. It's unrealistic, in the US for example, to expect that while the private sector suffers unemployment at 9-something percent, even higher if you count the underemployed, the public servants take no raises but keep their jobs. Eventually if revenues fall enough, additional savings have to occur and most unions would rather keep members' jobs than see someone laid off for a benefit.
However, not Govt Unions, they don't want to give up anything and when you threaten to take away a previously promised benefit, despite changing economic circumstances from when that benefit was given, they go on strike causing everyone to feel their immediate need for the services they provide. This is unconscionable. This is why I believe if you have a govt. job you shouldn't be allowed to strike because your actions amount to blackmail. You already have the benefit of a secure job with little threat of layoffs and the pension you receive you know is good because it's backed by the govt. Ultimately Govt Unions need to recognize that they work for the taxpayer and if the taxpayer is taking a paycut, so should they.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Misguided attempt at fixing the wrong Problem
In the Wall Street Journal, it's being reported that deficit/debt talks between House and Senate Republicans have broken down with the White House over the issue of taxes. The United States is $14 trillion in debt, fighting three wars (Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya) and has a military presence throughout the world. We haven't had a deficit per GDP ratio this high since we fought World War 2. We've also spent $16.5 trillion on social welfare programs, aka War on Poverty, with a negligible change in the actual poverty rate since the 1960's.
Additionally, the Federal Reserve which was created in 1913 to lessen the impact of business cycles (Read end Recessions/Depressions), which failed only 8 years later (1920-1921 Depression which was the worst in US History except that the 1930's Great Depression dwarfed it), and has failed in many subsequent recessions since then, has also managed to Quantitavely Ease the purchasing power of the US dollar by several trillion by purchasing US Treasury Securities. As a result, we're currently watching the Consumer Price Index go from a traditional 3% inflation rate to roughly double. To escape the inflation caused by the Federal Reserve, many investors hedged against it by purchasing commodities (silver, gold, oil, etc.) which recently popped (31% silver from $49 to $34 and 21% oil from $115 to $91).
Bankers and Investors have loved the cheap money created, nearly doubling the Dow Jones from its March 2009 low of 6,627 to its April 2011 high of 12,811. However, unemployment hasn't changed from its 9-something percent. Who benefited? Obviously not the poor and middle class. This isn't a class warfare, coveting thy neighbor's wealth observation. This is an argument against socializing debt and privatizing profit. There is no reason any bank or corporation should have been bailed out with TARP or with cheap money from the Federal Reserve (Read Interest Target rate of 0%). The only Industrialized Nation with a debt to GDP ratio higher than the US is Japan, and they have it solely because they did the same exact thing we've been doing to force recovery on their economy back in the 1990's. It didn't work and as a result they had a decade of lost production and stagnation. Which brings us back to the present.
There's no need to have a deficit. There's no need to have military bases throughout the world at a Defense Department cost of over $800 billion per year. There's no need to spend nearly $2 trillion (55-60% of our Federal Budget) on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other Socialist programs. We shouldn't have Corporate Taxes (a cost which is shifted to the Consumer, not the Producer) let alone the highest Corporate Taxes in the world. We shouldn't have Capital Gains Taxes on those that risk their wealth in order to grow it and in return provide us with every consumer product we purchase. We shouldn't have Estate Taxes which punish those who spent an entire lifetime accumulating wealth that they could pass on to their posterity. We most definitely should not be spending 8% (currently) of our Federal Budget financing our Debt Burden.
What we need is a return to the constructs of the Federal Republic that this country was founded on. Our Constitution stipulated that we have a Senate and a House of Representatives. This allowed State Representation in the Senate and the Peoples Representation in the House. People love using a democracy, which we are not, to use their majority position to force their will on the minority. It's easy to say raise taxes when you're asking the rich to do it because they're a minority. It's easy to keep demanding socialist benefits via Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid because they're in the majority. Our country needs a return to the Federal Republic in which Senators can say and not suffer the wrath of the Voter that we can't afford it, there are consequences to squelching wealth production, there are consequences to ever increasing benefits. So these talks about deficit reduction and debt ceiling are predicated on the belief that our system as it currently stands can continue to function into the future, which is simply unsustainable and false.
Return to the Federal Republic that our country was founded on and these issues will be righted. End the Federal Government's means of directly collecting revenue from the People and force it to collect it from the States. Allow 50 experiments on the best method to raise revenue and foster growth and we'll once again be the Nation of Exceptionalism that Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about in the 1800's.
Additionally, the Federal Reserve which was created in 1913 to lessen the impact of business cycles (Read end Recessions/Depressions), which failed only 8 years later (1920-1921 Depression which was the worst in US History except that the 1930's Great Depression dwarfed it), and has failed in many subsequent recessions since then, has also managed to Quantitavely Ease the purchasing power of the US dollar by several trillion by purchasing US Treasury Securities. As a result, we're currently watching the Consumer Price Index go from a traditional 3% inflation rate to roughly double. To escape the inflation caused by the Federal Reserve, many investors hedged against it by purchasing commodities (silver, gold, oil, etc.) which recently popped (31% silver from $49 to $34 and 21% oil from $115 to $91).
Bankers and Investors have loved the cheap money created, nearly doubling the Dow Jones from its March 2009 low of 6,627 to its April 2011 high of 12,811. However, unemployment hasn't changed from its 9-something percent. Who benefited? Obviously not the poor and middle class. This isn't a class warfare, coveting thy neighbor's wealth observation. This is an argument against socializing debt and privatizing profit. There is no reason any bank or corporation should have been bailed out with TARP or with cheap money from the Federal Reserve (Read Interest Target rate of 0%). The only Industrialized Nation with a debt to GDP ratio higher than the US is Japan, and they have it solely because they did the same exact thing we've been doing to force recovery on their economy back in the 1990's. It didn't work and as a result they had a decade of lost production and stagnation. Which brings us back to the present.
There's no need to have a deficit. There's no need to have military bases throughout the world at a Defense Department cost of over $800 billion per year. There's no need to spend nearly $2 trillion (55-60% of our Federal Budget) on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other Socialist programs. We shouldn't have Corporate Taxes (a cost which is shifted to the Consumer, not the Producer) let alone the highest Corporate Taxes in the world. We shouldn't have Capital Gains Taxes on those that risk their wealth in order to grow it and in return provide us with every consumer product we purchase. We shouldn't have Estate Taxes which punish those who spent an entire lifetime accumulating wealth that they could pass on to their posterity. We most definitely should not be spending 8% (currently) of our Federal Budget financing our Debt Burden.
What we need is a return to the constructs of the Federal Republic that this country was founded on. Our Constitution stipulated that we have a Senate and a House of Representatives. This allowed State Representation in the Senate and the Peoples Representation in the House. People love using a democracy, which we are not, to use their majority position to force their will on the minority. It's easy to say raise taxes when you're asking the rich to do it because they're a minority. It's easy to keep demanding socialist benefits via Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid because they're in the majority. Our country needs a return to the Federal Republic in which Senators can say and not suffer the wrath of the Voter that we can't afford it, there are consequences to squelching wealth production, there are consequences to ever increasing benefits. So these talks about deficit reduction and debt ceiling are predicated on the belief that our system as it currently stands can continue to function into the future, which is simply unsustainable and false.
Return to the Federal Republic that our country was founded on and these issues will be righted. End the Federal Government's means of directly collecting revenue from the People and force it to collect it from the States. Allow 50 experiments on the best method to raise revenue and foster growth and we'll once again be the Nation of Exceptionalism that Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about in the 1800's.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Was I right?!
I previously posted:
"Why does this matter? Because together, Freddie and Fannie have about $4.5 trillion in liabilities. That's not to say all their loans will default and the US taxpayer will be on the hook for $4.5 trillion, but even if 20% failed, about equal to the proportion of subprime mortgages your standard bank issued, that's a $900 billion hit. We already owe $12 trillion. How did we get here to begin with? Because of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1979, signed by Jimma Carter, which forced banks to open branches in poor communities and issue loans to poor and subprime borrowers."
In today's CNBC article, "According to the Congressional Budget Office, the losses could balloon to $400 billion. And if housing prices fall further, some experts caution, the cost to the taxpayer could hit as much as $1 trillion."
"Why does this matter? Because together, Freddie and Fannie have about $4.5 trillion in liabilities. That's not to say all their loans will default and the US taxpayer will be on the hook for $4.5 trillion, but even if 20% failed, about equal to the proportion of subprime mortgages your standard bank issued, that's a $900 billion hit. We already owe $12 trillion. How did we get here to begin with? Because of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1979, signed by Jimma Carter, which forced banks to open branches in poor communities and issue loans to poor and subprime borrowers."
In today's CNBC article, "According to the Congressional Budget Office, the losses could balloon to $400 billion. And if housing prices fall further, some experts caution, the cost to the taxpayer could hit as much as $1 trillion."
Friday, June 25, 2010
Financially Reformed, Maybe
This Wall Street Journal article is reporting that Congress has managed to, apparently, reconcile House and Senate versions of the Financial Regulatory reform bills that previously passed.
Accordingly, this new bill will "prohibit banks from making risky bets with their own funds" however allowing "financial companies to make limited investments in areas such as hedge funds and private-equity funds." This bill would also "limit the ability of federally insured banks to trade derivatives," however, it "would allow banks to trade interest-rate swaps, certain credit derivatives and others—in other words the kind of standard safeguards a bank would take to hedge its own risk."
Party ideology is summed up as "Democrats hailed the agreement as a tool to prevent the kind of taxpayer-funded bailouts that stabilized the economy in 2008 but left divisive scars. Many Republicans said the bill could have unintended consequences, crimping financial markets and access to credit."
However, the major point of contention I have, is that what caused the financial meltdown in late 2008 was the fact that subprime borrowers spurred the collapse by purchasing homes they could neither afford and lied on their applications to get, and in which case, banks repackaged these loans and sold them off as collatoralized debt obligations. Democrats have managed to regulate this, we'll see how effectively in the future, but have failed to curb loose lending practices to the types of borrowers that fueled this.
As the article states, "Government-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remain a multibillion dollar drain on the U.S. Treasury, and largely untouched by this proposal." Fannie and Freddie matter because they're the two organizations which buy up subprime mortgages and other smaller mortgages. What does that say about Fannie and Freddie? One could easily speculate that they'll suffer similar collapses as the banks that loaned to these same people. What does that mean? As succinctly as the article said, they'll "remain a multibillion dollar drain on the US Treasury."
Why does this matter? Because together, Freddie and Fannie have about $4.5 trillion in liabilities. That's not to say all their loans will default and the US taxpayer will be on the hook for $4.5 trillion, but even if 20% failed, about equal to the proportion of subprime mortgages your standard bank issued, that's a $900 billion hit. We already owe $12 trillion. How did we get here to begin with? Because of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1979, signed by Jimma Carter, which forced banks to open branches in poor communities and issue loans to poor and subprime borrowers.
We'll never see the type of reform needed for Fannie and Freddie so long as Democrats exists. Their sole purpose in life is to take money from the have mores and give it to the have lesses. Any attempt by financially prudent Republicans will be lambasted as an attack against the poor and hyperbole such as "kicking the poor out of their homes" will be tossed around. Based on Federal Govt tax collections, 53% of us paid Federal Income taxes last year, there's enough have lesses to make sure Democrats have enough power to prevent the necessary regulation of Fannie and Freddie from ever coming about. So much for reform.
Accordingly, this new bill will "prohibit banks from making risky bets with their own funds" however allowing "financial companies to make limited investments in areas such as hedge funds and private-equity funds." This bill would also "limit the ability of federally insured banks to trade derivatives," however, it "would allow banks to trade interest-rate swaps, certain credit derivatives and others—in other words the kind of standard safeguards a bank would take to hedge its own risk."
Party ideology is summed up as "Democrats hailed the agreement as a tool to prevent the kind of taxpayer-funded bailouts that stabilized the economy in 2008 but left divisive scars. Many Republicans said the bill could have unintended consequences, crimping financial markets and access to credit."
However, the major point of contention I have, is that what caused the financial meltdown in late 2008 was the fact that subprime borrowers spurred the collapse by purchasing homes they could neither afford and lied on their applications to get, and in which case, banks repackaged these loans and sold them off as collatoralized debt obligations. Democrats have managed to regulate this, we'll see how effectively in the future, but have failed to curb loose lending practices to the types of borrowers that fueled this.
As the article states, "Government-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remain a multibillion dollar drain on the U.S. Treasury, and largely untouched by this proposal." Fannie and Freddie matter because they're the two organizations which buy up subprime mortgages and other smaller mortgages. What does that say about Fannie and Freddie? One could easily speculate that they'll suffer similar collapses as the banks that loaned to these same people. What does that mean? As succinctly as the article said, they'll "remain a multibillion dollar drain on the US Treasury."
Why does this matter? Because together, Freddie and Fannie have about $4.5 trillion in liabilities. That's not to say all their loans will default and the US taxpayer will be on the hook for $4.5 trillion, but even if 20% failed, about equal to the proportion of subprime mortgages your standard bank issued, that's a $900 billion hit. We already owe $12 trillion. How did we get here to begin with? Because of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1979, signed by Jimma Carter, which forced banks to open branches in poor communities and issue loans to poor and subprime borrowers.
We'll never see the type of reform needed for Fannie and Freddie so long as Democrats exists. Their sole purpose in life is to take money from the have mores and give it to the have lesses. Any attempt by financially prudent Republicans will be lambasted as an attack against the poor and hyperbole such as "kicking the poor out of their homes" will be tossed around. Based on Federal Govt tax collections, 53% of us paid Federal Income taxes last year, there's enough have lesses to make sure Democrats have enough power to prevent the necessary regulation of Fannie and Freddie from ever coming about. So much for reform.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
My God is Obama stupid?!
Fox News is reporting that drug cartels have lookout posts throughout southern Arizona and Breitbart is reporting that drug cartels have snipers on the border ready to target American ICE agents. This is ridiculous!
The Federal Govt. has abdicated its responsibility to enforce our sovereignty and is going to make every attempt to prevent the State of Arizona from enforcing its sovereignty. When our duly elected officials fail to carry out the laws of our Nation, dereliction of duty, the responsibility to carry out said laws fall on the people of this Nation. If the Federal Govt. won't adhere to the contract we have with it, Constitution, then there is no reason for us to subjugate ourselves to it and therefore enforcing our laws becomes our responsibility. We need to enforce our border and if this means shooting armed drug cartel henchmen violating our sovereignty and poisoning our Citizenry with their drugs, then so be it. The Revolutionary War was fought over taxation without representation; we now have egregious taxation with dimwit representation and abdication when it comes to protecting our Nation!
This website is reporting that if Obama cannot get Congress to pass "comprehensive immigration reform" that he will, via Executive Order, grant "amnesty" to the 12-20 million illegal immigrants in this country. Eight Republican Senators wrote Obama a letter which contained the following:
“While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.
The Administration would be wise to abandon any plans for deferred action or parole for the illegal population. Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books.”
Jon Voight is also warning of a new "Civil War" in his open letter to President Obama in the Washington Times re: not only Obama's politics towards illegal immigration but also his politics towards the State of Israel. Is Obama the Man of Lawlessness we were warned about nearly 2,000 years ago? Does he really believe in rewarding illegal behavior by bestowing the blessings of American Citizenship solely because economic forces drove illegal immigrants to violate our sovereignty in order to look for work in the US? Is he really so sick as to abandon the State of Israel to the ruthless Islamists who want nothing better but to "wipe Israel off the map"?
The Federal Govt. has abdicated its responsibility to enforce our sovereignty and is going to make every attempt to prevent the State of Arizona from enforcing its sovereignty. When our duly elected officials fail to carry out the laws of our Nation, dereliction of duty, the responsibility to carry out said laws fall on the people of this Nation. If the Federal Govt. won't adhere to the contract we have with it, Constitution, then there is no reason for us to subjugate ourselves to it and therefore enforcing our laws becomes our responsibility. We need to enforce our border and if this means shooting armed drug cartel henchmen violating our sovereignty and poisoning our Citizenry with their drugs, then so be it. The Revolutionary War was fought over taxation without representation; we now have egregious taxation with dimwit representation and abdication when it comes to protecting our Nation!
This website is reporting that if Obama cannot get Congress to pass "comprehensive immigration reform" that he will, via Executive Order, grant "amnesty" to the 12-20 million illegal immigrants in this country. Eight Republican Senators wrote Obama a letter which contained the following:
“While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.
The Administration would be wise to abandon any plans for deferred action or parole for the illegal population. Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books.”
Jon Voight is also warning of a new "Civil War" in his open letter to President Obama in the Washington Times re: not only Obama's politics towards illegal immigration but also his politics towards the State of Israel. Is Obama the Man of Lawlessness we were warned about nearly 2,000 years ago? Does he really believe in rewarding illegal behavior by bestowing the blessings of American Citizenship solely because economic forces drove illegal immigrants to violate our sovereignty in order to look for work in the US? Is he really so sick as to abandon the State of Israel to the ruthless Islamists who want nothing better but to "wipe Israel off the map"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)