Showing posts with label HUMAN EVENTS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HUMAN EVENTS. Show all posts

Monday, June 20, 2011

Third Culture Kid Learns Respect for the Second Amendment

Third Culture Kid is the label used to describe someone like me. During my youth, I was raised in a culture other than that of birth. Over the years, I’ve also lived and worked in a number of other countries that taught me how to connect with those from many nations, learn languages rapidly, and, above all, appreciate the precious quality of The Constitution and the uniqueness of the Second Amendment.

My first memories of life are of the Tet Offensive of 1968, specifically the May Offensive, or “Little Tet.” Missed by Walter Cronkite, Little Tet was so much more bloody than the one week earlier. My father, an engineer who moved his family with him to Vietnam, kept an M1 carbine during that time, in case the fighting spilled over the wall-- or, as often happened, a “Saigon cowboy” jumped the wall and burglarized our home.

He purchased the weapon on the black market, common practice for expats in South Vietnam during the war. Everyone was armed, but not legally. If you were caught owning a firearm, you had to bribe the “White Mice,” one of Southeast Asia’s most corrupt police forces, of one of Southeast Asia’s most corrupt governments.
Jump to 1984, and I had just spent 11 months as an unwanted guest in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, held in three of their “re-education” prison camps on trumped up charges of spying for the CIA, while actually a teenaged photojournalist covering his first big story, the search for Captain Kidd’s treasure, and the possible existence of American MIAs held in camps.

Although, my arrest, jailing and release received front-page coverage around the world, it was the story that soon broke on the local in San Francisco that caught my attention. The city’s mayor, Diane Feinstein, was caught owning a handgun and concealed weapon permit, all while pushing for a complete ban on handgun ownership for the city’s residents.
Senator Feinstein had become the mayor of San Francisco as the result of the killing-by-handgun of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk, so that might explain her reasoning for being such an anti-gun champion.

It doesn’t explain why she also armed herself, unless you understand human nature and self-preference: better me armed than you. Self-preference is a strong impetus in the animal world, and over the last forty years in Washington, it has sadly overtaken the original common sense and self-preservation that distilled the principles written down to define and defend a nation and its people: LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

If we were to only look at the possible psychological reasons for Sen. Feinstein’s constant attacks on the Second Amendment, and apply them to me, I, too, should be a vehement anti-gun proponent. My great-grandfather shot and killed my great-grandmother, then immediately committed suicide with the same pistol.

When I was taken prisoner that night on a Vietnamese island in 1983, there were a number of fully automatic weapons fired over my head. And the swipe of the butt-stock from one of those AK47s turned the sight in my left eye from 20/20 to 20/80. Also, I had lived in Singapore, a nation revered by those who dream of big government, and touted by every anti-gun organization as proof that gun control works.

But, then there’s the Battle of King’s Mountain, where my ancestors, a Scots-Irishman, named David Graham, of Chester County, SC, and his sons, used rifles to beat the British.

Over the years—especially when I spent a year in a cabin in Alaska, coming to grips with memories of war and writing my first book—guns have kept me fed with the most healthy animal protein offerings from nature. And were it not for the firearms I carried in combat,

I wouldn’t be alive to write to you now. As for Singapore, one of the most modern nations, with the highest average quality of life in the world, the real reason for low crime is not the horrendous restrictions on firearms ownership, but its tight enforcement of its laws. Singapore is a dictatorship (I was reminded by an original episode of Star Trek censored by the government, where Captain Kirk rattled off a list of dictators, including Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew): a “benevolent dictatorship”, but a dictatorship nonetheless.

Even now, I wonder if I could be thrown in jail and caned on my next visit, if they knew that when I was nine years old, I secretly built and discharged a matchlock built from a Disneyland toy musket, a match, a Japanese Pachinko ball, and ground Estes rocket solid fuel—I’m still amazed I didn’t blow my face off!

Firearms are only as good or evil, or as decisive, as the one brandishing them.
Yet, every week, federal, state, and city lawmakers and politicians propose a Rubik’s cube of laws diminishing the Second Amendment--laws impinge on the God-given right and responsibility of every human to self-preservation.

It’s our responsibility to remember the purity and simplicity of The Constitution. That it’s a document intended for eons based on simple truths, and though can be added to, cannot, must never, be modified to meet the whims and agendas of political fancy.

To do so is not only counter to the vision of the founders of the United States of America, it also risks our sliding further down the slope of corruption and elitism that infests the governments of Europe, Africa, Latin America and Asia.

Back Door Gun Control and Fighting Back

Back door gun control is the phenomena where an entity will enact a law that indirectly affects your right to keep and bear arms. It’s easier to pass legislation that harms Second Amendment rights when it does not directly require the citizen to surrender a gun.

Examples of back door gun control are:

Define ammo components as an unhealthy threat. Environmental laws designed to outlaw the use of ingredients that comprise components of arms related materials. The easiest example to point to is lead. Lead has long been the primary ingredient of bullets. Designating lead as an environmental hazard means that its use can be tightly controlled, and therefore restricted. Restrict lead and you restrict bullet production. Restrict bullet production and you dilute the ability to purchase ammo through increased materials cost.

Tax it if it shoots. In 1993 New York Senate Democrat, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, proposed that taxes on handgun ammunition be raised to 50 percent on most handgun ammunition and 10,000 percent on 9mm hollow points. Taxes are the quick and dirty way to legislate something out of existence. Currently there is an 11 percent tax on ammo.

Engineer the practicality out of it. Force manufacturers to have a biometric mechanism that prohibits anyone but the owner to operate the firearm. Effectively you need a computer chip somewhere enclosed in the firearm that is smart enough to recognize one user from the other and will enable the gun to fire by the proper finger. I hope the gun is forgiving enough so that when your wife grabs your gun to stop a bad guy that just broke in the house it fires.

Excessive tracking measures for guns and ammo. The most frequently discussed measure is micro-stamping components and mandatory ballistics sampling for tracing purposes. Micro-stamping is a unique identifier on the bullet and the case so that the bullet can be matched up to the case which can be matched up to the gun. This method will make ammo more expensive and put onerous responsibility to track every round manufactured and sold. It also will be one giant leap toward outlawing hand-loading. Getting a fired round from every gun so ballistics matching can be done sounds like a reasonable action but as soon as a bad guy gets his hands on a gun he will take a file to the bore and ruin the ballistic fingerprint.

Shut down guns shows to kill private sales. Let’s face it; closing down gun shows is about curtailing private gun sales. The “gun show loophole” is a wonderful catch phrase to demonize private sales but it’s about me not being able to sell my .22 to you. On the next level it is about someone not being able to give a gun as a gift and worse, it means that when Grandpa passes on he can’t leave you his rifle.
Call in the lawyers and bankrupt a gun owner. I once read that there are more lawyers in Washington DC, than in all of Japan. Yes, we live in a litigious country and most of us are certainly not capable of self-representation in court. I recently talked to a former private investigator and claims investigator on the subject of defensive shootings and he said “I won a lot of cases I should have lost and I lost a lot of cases I should have one.” What? Losing cases you should have one just doesn’t seem right.

Sad, but true, justice often goes to the best legal team and the best legal team does not come cheaply.

Consider this true scenario: You've legally checked your firearm at the airport of the state where you're permitted to carry concealed. After flying into New York City, you're greeted by two cops. They tell you to put your hands behind you back and throw the cuffs on you. You have just been arrested. After sitting in jail for 18 hours you have just found out you are there on felony charges. Yes, you are in big trouble and it is going to be expensive. It doesn’t matter if you are in the right, you now need legal help.

The United States Concealed Carry Association just recently announced Self-Defense Shield. Self-Defense Shield is insurance coverage to cover your legal expenses in case of a defensive shooting or a gun related legal matter. In the above case Tim Schmidt, the founder of the USCCA, sent $3,500 to the man arrested on felony charges so he could immediately get a lawyer. The charges were dropped but the sting of the arrest will never go away.

Self-Defense Shield is designed to keep the innocent protected. It is one method of countering the back door gun control that plagues our innocent citizens and helps us protect and preserve the right to keep and bear arms from out of control attorneys and judges.

To learn more about you Concealed Carry Gun Rights please click here: http://www.concealedcarryreport.com.

Obama's Dictators

President Obama this month opened the White House and, with it, the stature of a presidential photo-op to one of the worst dictators in Africa: Gabon’s Ali Bongo Ondimba.

The Bongo family (his father ruled the oil-rich nation for over 40 years) has stolen a big chunk of the impoverished nation’s gross domestic product, press reports say. The riches have allowed the Bongos to live a life of ostentatious luxury. They buy million-dollar homes in Hollywood and France and spend gobs of money on around-the-world shopping trips.

Even the mainstream media noted the oddity of an American President on June 9 putting down the red carpet for such an unsavory despot.

“The family that has ruled the African nation of Gabon for decades has been accused of taking bribes, stealing hundreds of millions of dollars and presiding over a system rife with corruption, but that hasn’t stopped President Obama from inviting President Ali Bongo of Gabon to the White House Thursday,” said ABC’s Brian Ross.

One dictator on one day at the White House might be excused as playing diplomacy with the hand you’re dealt.

But there seems to be a pattern with this President of reaching out to the worst, while snubbing the best.

A year before Bongo came to town, the leader of a staunch ally visited the White House. There was no red carpet. No photo-op. No dinner. Obama treated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu like a troublesome kid he had to scare straight.

Netanyahu was shuffled off to an office where the President abruptly left the meeting with the words “let me know if there is anything new,” according to The Times of London, after he failed to get the prime minister to give in to the Palestinians.

When Netanyahu returned this spring, he did get a photo-op. But Obama dissed him once again. He laid the framework for the visit by delivering a speech that said Israel had to shrink its borders, putting Netanyahu in the awkward position of having to publicly reject the suicidal plan.

Obama’s tortured outreach to the Muslim world has found Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referring to Syrian henchmen Bashar Assad as a “reformer.”

When they met, Obama bowed before the Saudi Arabian king. That country’s money and ideology have done more to fuel radical Islam than any other’s.

Obama often criticizes Jerusalem, but rarely mentions Hamas, the U.S.-designated terrorist organization that vows to destroy Israel.

It was Obama’s outreach to the renegade regime in Iran that started his troublesome tilt away from Israel. Obama believed the magic of his presence would convince Iran’s hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the one fueling deadly insurgents in Iraq and a nuclear weapons program at home, to sit down and talk.

One of his first acts as President in 2009 was to send a personal letter to Iran’s ultimate leader, Ayatollah Ali Kamenei, seeking a discussion on issues of mutual interest, such as Tehran’s determination to build nukes and destroy Israel.

He also cut a video to the Iranian people, calling Iran one of the world’s “great civilizations.”

“We have serious differences that have grown over time,” Obama said. “My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community.”

When Ahmadinejad brutally put down a rebellion after he won what the regime calls an election later that year, the White House was mostly silent.

Two years later, what some view as a show of weakness has gotten the U.S. no where. Iran is still trying to kill U.S. troops and make nukes.

Ahmadinejad proclaimed this week he is forming an anti-West axis of Iran, Russia and China to make life even more difficult for America.

At the same time the White House was talking nice to despots in Iran, it was planning to pull the rug out from under two loyal European allies.

The increasingly authoritarian regime in Moscow did not like George W. Bush’s deal to place missile interceptors in Poland and an advanced radar in the Czech Republic to protect Europe from Iran’s gathering storm. Hillary Clinton wanted to “reset” relations with Russia. So the Obama people would move closer to one-party rulers in Russia and move away from newly democratic Eastern Europe.

Obama dumped the missile defense deals to make Vladimir Putin happy. It highly embarrassed Poland and the Czech Republic, who had invested much political capital to win over opponents. Just last week, the Czech defense minister announced he was pulling out of the minor missile defense role the White House offered in place of the Bush plan to host a far-looking tracking radar.

The White House was busy in 2009 offending old friends, too. And there is no better old friend than Great Britain. After the 9-11 attacks, British Prime Minister Tony Blair rushed to Washington in a show of solidarity in a war still being fought 10 years later.

He loaned as a symbol of this alliance a bust of Sir Winston Churchill. In an earlier era, with the world at war, Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt formed a special alliance to defeat another fanatical enemy.

Britain wanted to extend the bust loan during Obama’s time. But the president sent it packing—literally.

Hugo Chavez

There is no more anti-American, anti-democratic leader in this hemisphere than Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Chavez denounces the U.S.A. regularly as he forges closer economic and military ties with Iran and other Socialist rebels in South America.

When Obama and Chavez met for the first time in 2009 at the Summit of the Americas, the two smiled warmly and exchanged a power hand shake.

Obama initiated the meeting. He always does with these kinds of people. There is no indication he in any way protested Chavez’s Cuba-like crack-down that sees a free press, free enterprise and free speech disappearing.

“Everywhere in Latin America, enemies of America are going to use the picture of Chavez smiling and meeting with the President as proof that Chavez is now legitimate, that he’s acceptable,“ Newt Gingrich, a former House speaker, told NBC’s “Today“ show.

Like Israel in the Middle East, there is no better friend to the U.S. in South America than Colombia. It is fighting drug-smuggling Marxist guerrillas cheered on by Hugo Chavez from over the border.

Yet whom did candidate Obama single out for criticism in South America. Who else? Colombia.

“I’m concerned frankly about the reports there of the involvement of the Colombian administration with human rights violations and the suppression of workers,” he said in a raw attempt to win labor support by opposing a free trade treaty with Bogota.

Obama has stopped his overt outreach to Iran. Perhaps reality has checked his belief he can sweet-talk fanatics. Now, let’s end talk of a “reformer” running Syria and a “reset” for Moscow authoritarians, and a photographed power handshake with the man who threatens to stop South America’s remarkable climb to free markets and democracies.

'The Next Middle East War'

In early January, Chuck DeVore, a former California lawmaker and U.S. intelligence officer who's now an  author and Middle East expert, predicted the turmoil in Egypt, weeks before it erupted, in the pages of Investor’s Business Daily.  The San Francisco Chronicle wrote, “Chuck DeVore … beat the CIA to predicting the Egypt Crisis.”

DeVore is now forecasting war between Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah in mid-August, 2011.  This is the premise of his exclusive to Human Events special report, The Next Middle East War, at 22 pages with maps, charts and photos.  It is a quick, informative read that summarizes the origins of today’s unrest and how the conflict might unfold. 

DeVore explains who the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hezbollah are, and their objectives (destroy Israel, kill the Jews, then take on Western Civilization).  DeVore also outlines the goals of other regional actors, such as Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.  Using his extensive military intelligence and foreign affairs background, he also provides a day-by-day scenario for the coming conflict and its aftermath—all in a style that is as gripping as it is explanatory.

DeVore studied Islamic political thought at American University in Cairo, Egypt, in the 1980s—before it became fashionable.  As a U.S. Army lieutenant colonel of military intelligence, he understands military operations and the capabilities of armament.  In the latter part of the Reagan administration, DeVore was a White House appointee in the Pentagon as a special assistant for foreign affairs.  In that capacity, he traveled to the Middle East.

During his most recent trip to Israel, his fifth since 1984, DeVore was extensively briefed on the Middle East region by officials in the highest echelons of Israel’s diplomatic and intelligence establishment. 

The State of ObamaCare


Big Government’s most unhealthy program, ObamaCare, has been mutating and degenerating since the hour of its gruesome birth.  Thousands of pages of new regulations have erupted from its bloated, heaving body like tumors.  Waivers for politically connected unions and businesses have gushed from its open wounds.
The Administration realized that the slow bleed of ObamaCare waivers was killing it politically, as each new waiver release gave critics a new opportunity to write about how awful the program is, and how corrupt Obama’s government has become.  The solution, unveiled last week, is to quietly gather applications for new waivers until September, then issue a huge clump of them all at once.  This is supposed to spell the end of the waiver program, although since every other aspect of ObamaCare has been shrouded in obfuscation and secrecy, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Administration didn’t find some way to continue offering a little relief to its very special friends.
The end of the waiver program is not a victory to be savored.  It’s just more proof that political control of the economy is an unmitigated disaster.  If these hundreds of waivers were a good idea before now, why do they suddenly stop being a good idea in September?  Administration flacks have been dispatched to insist this is “absolutely not a political decision,” but they can offer no alternative explanation. 
Of course it’s political, just like all the special deals cut to purchase the votes for ObamaCare’s passage in the first place.  This was never a brilliantly designed solution to health insurance problems.  The objective was to grab power.  The ability to dispense special exceptions is another form of power, and that’s why it will return, in one form or another.
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports on the latest ObamaCare regulation tumor: an ocean of new rules designed to encourage doctors from different specialties to band together into “Affordable Care Organizations.”  The current lack of coordination between doctors is partially a result of Medicare’s neurotic system of price controls.  Naturally, a new tidal wave of regulations that will force doctors to work together is the ideal Big Government fix.
The American Medical Group Association had a look at these new rules, and pronounced them “overly prescriptive, operationally burdensome, and the incentives are too difficult to achieve.”  The Journal calls the new rules “a classic of top-down micromanagement,” including 429 pages of clinical measures, penalties, bonuses, and obfuscation designed to keep participating doctors from cherry-picking their patients.  Instead of competition producing efficiency, as in Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare reforms, the Obama approach blindfolds both doctors and patients, so bureaucrats can herd then around with sticks.
93% of the American Medical Group Association membership said it was not interested in enrolling in the voluntary pilot program… which will eventually become mandatory, if ObamaCare’s maze-building regulatory goblins have their way.
The Journal mentions the way “regulatory uncertainty is inhibiting the investments and long-term practice decisions required” for doctors to come up with innovative and efficient solutions, which makes them just like every other terrified business trapped in the Obama recession.  No rational investor accepts the risk and hard work of forming a new business - especially one as complex and expensive as a large, multi-specialty medical practice – while a gigantic bureaucracy is grinding out gigantic stacks of regulatory paperwork, which can destroy entire industries on a political whim.  Few health care providers are reassured by the latest round of promises from the Obama Administration, which insists that everyone who doesn’t receive a waiver will just love the latest round of brilliant reforms they’re cooking up behind closed doors.
Liberty is still suffering from a degenerative disorder, and every treatment proposed by Obama and his legislative surgeons involves more rules, regulations, and penalties, which means less and less freedom.

Monday, June 13, 2011

2012 Obama Victory: Reaching Socialism's Tipping Point

In a recent meeting with a leading Republican presidential hopeful, I asked the candidate why he’s running for the nation’s highest office.  He looked me in the eye and stated flatly his belief that America may not survive a second Obama term—that President Obama’s policy agenda is so radical, and his willingness to circumvent congressional authority so flagrant, that America might never recover.

I wasn’t surprised to hear such a stark analysis of the stakes ahead in 2012.  It is a sentiment shared by many top Republicans today, and it’s one that I agree with.  A reelected Obama, armed with a fresh mandate and uninhibited by political constraints, would have an opportunity to fulfill what he promised to do when he first ran for President in 2008: to “fundamentally transform America.”

Few areas of American life would be left untouched after eight years of Obama.  According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Obama’s budget plans for the next 10 years would lead to a deficit totaling $9.5 trillion, and that by 2021 public debt would equal 87% of the gross domestic product (GDP).

Net interest payments, according to the CBO, would increase by 400% from 2012 to 2021, from 1.7% to nearly 4% of the GDP.

Republicans in Congress would do what they could to restrain Obama’s agenda.  But through his use of vetoes, executive orders, policy initiatives, recess appointments and signing statements, as well as thousands of government bureaucrats issuing a web of regulations, President Obama would be able to accomplish much of what he couldn’t get through Congress.

Obama would no doubt veto significant spending cuts along with any attempts to repeal ObamaCare.

On gun control, the Obama Justice Department recently began holding meetings to determine what the administration may be able to do to bypass Congress and shape gun policy through the executive branch.

In March, according to the Huffington Post, Obama said this to gun control activist Jim Brady concerning increased gun regulation:  “I just want you to know that we are working on it.  We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

Congressional liberals were unable to pass cap-and-trade legislation in a Democratic Congress, but that hasn’t stopped the White House from implementing harsh energy regulations over the last two years.  The Environmental Protection Agency has already started to regulate greenhouse gas emissions at some energy plants.

Two new EPA pollution regulations will hit the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose their jobs, and electric rates will skyrocket, according to a new study based on government data.

Obama pledged to take up immigration reform at the beginning of his presidency, and left-wing Hispanic activists are angry that nothing’s been passed.  Dozens of policy makers are pushing the President to sign an executive order halting the deportation of millions of illegal immigrants, even those who have knowingly overstayed their visas.

Obama says he remains committed to a legislative solution.  But, whether through executive fiat or legislation, amnesty would be at the top of an Obama second-term agenda.

In April, Obama made it clear that so-called gay marriage would be high on his second-term agenda, telling gay rights advocates in San Francisco, “Our work is not finished.”

Obama has in recent years maintained that he supports civil unions for homosexual couples but has hesitated to call for redefining marriage.  Instead, he continues to tell us that he is “wrestling” and “grappling” with, not to mention “evolving” on, gay marriage.

Nobody believes him.  Obama supports gay marriage full-stop.  He has already called for the repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” begun offering benefits to the same-sex partners of federal workers and ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the federal law that bans homosexual marriage, the Defense of Marriage Act.

Obama supports homosexual marriage but knows it is a political liability.  If he wins a second term, he will appoint hundreds of judges to the federal courts and probably at least one Supreme Court justice who will redefine marriage by judicial fiat.

As ambitious and radical as Obama’s first two and a half years have been, many liberal activists are upset at what they believe has been Obama’s timidity in pursuing his agenda.  It may be difficult for many conservatives to believe, but much of Obama’s left-wing base—young people, minorities, unions—are disappointed and disillusioned that Obama has not done more.

Many Democrats may be reluctant to vote in 2012—which is why Obama will spend the next year and a half making even more promises to them.  And this time, if he wins, he will have little reason to hold back in pursuing his agenda.

At a recent campaign event in Chicago, Obama exhorted supporters to vote and stay involved in his campaign.  “There is unfinished business.  The vision hasn’t changed.  What we care about hasn’t changed.  Our commitments should not have changed,” he said.  “And the question is, do we finish the job.  I’m prepared to finish the job.  I hope you are too.”

A second Obama term would move America beyond the tipping point, toward European-style socialism.  Two things need to happen in order to avoid that outcome: voters need to understand—and the Republican nominee needs to candidly explain—what’s at stake.

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

'The Next Middle East War'

In early January, Chuck DeVore, a former California lawmaker and U.S. intelligence officer who's now an  author and Middle East expert, predicted the turmoil in Egypt, weeks before it erupted, in the pages of Investor’s Business Daily.  The San Francisco Chronicle wrote, “Chuck DeVore … beat the CIA to predicting the Egypt Crisis.”

DeVore is now forecasting war between Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah in mid-August, 2011.  This is the premise of his exclusive to Human Events special report, The Next Middle East War, at 22 pages with maps, charts and photos.  It is a quick, informative read that summarizes the origins of today’s unrest and how the conflict might unfold. 

DeVore explains who the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hezbollah are, and their objectives (destroy Israel, kill the Jews, then take on Western Civilization).  DeVore also outlines the goals of other regional actors, such as Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.  Using his extensive military intelligence and foreign affairs background, he also provides a day-by-day scenario for the coming conflict and its aftermath—all in a style that is as gripping as it is explanatory.

DeVore studied Islamic political thought at American University in Cairo, Egypt, in the 1980s—before it became fashionable.  As a U.S. Army lieutenant colonel of military intelligence, he understands military operations and the capabilities of armament.  In the latter part of the Reagan administration, DeVore was a White House appointee in the Pentagon as a special assistant for foreign affairs.  In that capacity, he traveled to the Middle East.

During his most recent trip to Israel, his fifth since 1984, DeVore was extensively briefed on the Middle East region by officials in the highest echelons of Israel’s diplomatic and intelligence establishment. 

Sunday, June 5, 2011

Stunner. Democrats Latest Plan Is to Spend More of Your Money

Because tripling the US deficit in one year just wasn't good enough.

The Obama deficit will reach $1.65 trillion this year. (The Captain's Comments)
They wouldn't be democrats if they didn't want to spend more of your money.
The Hill reported:
House Democrats this week have amplified their calls for new spending on infrastructure and other federal projects in the face of May's discouraging job-creation figures.
Even as Republicans are insisting on "trillions" of dollars in spending cuts, Democrats maintain that a targeted injection of additional federal dollars in the near-term would go a long way toward reversing the hiring slump. Friday's disappointing job report, they say, only bolsters their case.
"The American people, while concerned about the deficit, place much more emphasis on job creation, and they see a role for the government," Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) told The Hill. "A fast injection of job stimulus on the public side would help tremendously. … It [the job report] helps our argument about investment."
Other Democrats delivered a similar message on Friday. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) said "the answer" to the lingering jobs crisis is "investment" in the "communities and businesses who need confidence and resources to hire [people]." Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) said "investing in our communities goes hand in hand with full economic recovery."
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said that only in Washington is targeted new spending being demonized. "Once you get outside the Beltway, almost everyone agrees that we should be rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and investing in clean American energy that reduces our dependence on oil," Blumenauer said.