DEBT LIMIT

A GUIDE TO AMERICAN FEDERAL DEBT

MADE EASY.

(hat-tip: Jeanne R.)

The political economist Frederic Bastiat tried to warn us - over 160 years ago - in his work "The Law" that there would be those who would wish to plunder our persons, liberty and property AND limit our ability to protect & defend ourselves by supplanting  our natural rights with the laws of the their own aims. To affect this legal pillage, they would use (and change when necessary)the Laws of Government to allow the state to sanction common force against the individual . When the Government's common force is perverted, the individual's right to self-defense is set aside - set aside in favor of an another more preferred or favored group.

Now, it seems as if the radical Islamists and their willing dhimmis have taken a tactic from the plunderers playbook exposed in "The Law"-  to use Government force in favor of Islam at the expense of all other ideologies.  Yes, it is abundantly clear that according to the Koran, Islam is more than a theology it is a complex sociological and governmental life system whose ideology is incompatible with Western Civilization.

The startling thing about the article "Black Day for Austria"  (not Australia as I first read) http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2702/sabaditsch-wolff-appeal  excerpted below ...

An Austrian appellate court has upheld the conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese housewife and anti-Jihad activist, for "denigrating religious beliefs" after giving a series of seminars about the dangers of radical Islam.

The December 20 ruling shows that while Judaism and Christianity can be disparaged with impunity in postmodern multicultural Austria, speaking the truth about Islam is subject to swift and hefty legal penalties.

Although the case has major implications for freedom of speech in Austria, as well as in Europe as a whole, it has received virtually no press coverage in the American mainstream media.

...is NOT the lack of press coverage; but, the complete lack of concern to where this long dark road really leads!

Lest there be any doubt, this road leads to a place where few in the western world could imagine today ... a hole of intellectual darkness so vast and deep: that not only can women not drive - they have nothing unless it is deemed so by their husband, father or brother; where most men not only do not read or think, they are know only the 6346 verses of Koran; a place where technology does not function, instead it is magic that must be exorcized ... a place so dark where what once was known slips back in to the unknowable, where enlightenment is obscure and heretics are beheaded.

Not long ago, GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain stirred up a hornet's nest when he observed that the reason many black Americans voted Democratic is because they have been brainwashed. Of course, the hyenas lined up to do what liberals do best: call people they disagree with names instead of arguing facts. Al Sharpton said Mr. Cain was not an authentic black man. I'm not being flip here, but Al, he's darker than you! Mr. Cain was called an Oreo and slave on the white man's plantation. But who are the real plantation owners? Fifty years ago, before Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, which overturned 80 years of Democratic opposition to ending racial discrimination, 80% of blacks lived in married, two-parent households. Today 60% of black children grow up in fatherless homes supported by a myriad of federal government programs. 70% of black babies (those that survive the 300,000 annual abortions in the black community) are born to unwed mothers who are supported by federal and state taxpayers. And that's just for starters.
 
So, who are the real slaveowners? Let's take a little exam. How much history do you know?

Part Une:

1. Which political party was established in 1854 to fight slavery in the US?
2. Which political party issued the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring all slaves in the rebellious Confederate States of America to be freemen?
3. Which party wrote and instituted the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which permanently outlawed slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibited racial discrimination in voting?
4. Which party wrote and enacted into law the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1875, 1957 and 1960?
5. Which party desegregated the Arizona Air National Guard two years before the U.S. Armed Forces were integrated?
6. Which party sent US military troops into Arkansas to desegregate Central High School in Little Rock in 1957?
7. Which party established the Revised Philadelphia Plan in 1969 and ushered in affirmative action as we understand it today?
8. Which party instituted busing to desegregate public schools, contributing to a decline in the percentage of segregated public schools in the South form 68 % to 9% in just five years (1969-1974?)

Okay, I'll make this easy for you; multiple choice:

a.) The Republican Party b.) The Democratic Party c.) The Bull Moose Party d.) The Birthday Party Now

Part Deux:

1. Which political party tolerated the practice of slavery in America and fought to allow its spread into new territories?
2. Which political party looked the other way while its southern wing sanctioned nearly one hundred years of terrorism against and disenfranchisement of black Americans, to include the establishment of the Ku Klux Klan terror group, the lynching of 3,447 blacks and 1,297 whites, and the enactment of Jim Crow laws to effectively deny blacks the right to vote or to be treated equally in public places?
3. Which party had a president who was a leader of the Progressive movement and promised to do more for black people, yet was responsible for essentially re-segregating the federal civil service, and became indignant when a black civil rights leader called him on his treachery?
4. Which political party gave birth to the Dixiecrats in 1948?
5. Which party had a nominee for president in 1960 who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while a senator and, as president, condemned the Freedom Riders for distracting him and the nation from the international crises of the day?
6. Which political party filibustered the 1957, 1960 and 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act?
7. Which political party had a powerful US Senator from West Virginia who was an Exalted Cyclops in the local chapter of the KKK?
8. Which party cancelled a highly successful voucher program in Washington, D.C. that pulled black students from dismally failing public schools and gave them a path to success?

Guess again: a.) The Republicans b.) The Democrats c.) The Bull Moosers d.) The Birthers

If you tune into Chris Matthews or any of the alphabet networks you probably think the Dems would be the correct choice for Part Une and The GOP is probably the evil bunch you would allot to Part Deux. Well you would be so very wrong!

But the Democrats keep handing out freebies and taking away a little liberty with each food stamp and free cell phone. The slavemasters keep the plantation open and full of slaves. Herman Cain has escaped the plantation.

But what happened when a slave escaped his slavemaster? He was hunted down, captured and hung as a lesson to the other slaves. Mr. Cain is being hunted now. Hopefully he can escape the hanging.

(Part Une and Part Deux questions courtesy of another escaped slave: Ron Miller of Lynchburg, Virginia an associate dean and assistant professor of government at Liberty University, a conservative activist and commentator, and author of the book, SELLOUT: Musings from Uncle Tom's Porch. The nine-year plus veteran of the U.S. Air Force and married father of three writes columns for several online sites and print publications, and his own website, TeamRonMiller.com. Join him on Facebook and Twitter at @TeamRonMiller.)

As I have said previously and here in Burning down the House , and here in Clear and Present Danger and in Captives in O'Babylon and here President Obama will be (is) a president unlike any other!

For that simple reason we should elect a leader who understands the difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution. We should elect a leader who knows the difference between capitalism and socialism and why we should choose the free market instead of a state managed one. We should elect a leader who understands the difference between earned and entitled.

We should elect a leader who knows who to lead...We should Elect a leader like Herman Cain! But, like so many things the operative word is SHOULD.



(hat-tip Jason Hoyt)

"Marxism in America" by Lt. Gen. (Ret.) W.G. Boykin - OAK



(hat-tip  CR4SP)

A warning to America: Dr. Guy Milliere, outspoken French author of "Dissident" bluntly states that "Europe is dead," killed by "technocrats" who subsidize indolence and encourage political correctness and growing islamization.



(hat-tip CR4SP)

Although, like most Americans, I don't want to see innocent people slaughtered, I also like a story where the good guys win and evil is vanquished.  I guess that's why I'm a big fan of John Wayne.  So, like many of you, I'm torn over the introduction of American military forces into Libya.

 

While I certainly think Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi should be deposed and put in front of a firing squad,  (his human rights violations and terrorist activities surely have earned him that) I've come to the conclusion that we are wrong to intervene in what is in actuality, a civil war. 

 

I know I'm going to get flak from conservatives and liberals alike who say we can't let the innocent suffer.  I now find myself at odds with the political pundits that I most frequently agree with.  But I have to ask, where do we draw the line?  Where were we in Darfur and in the Congo?  In Uganda and in Rwanda?   Fidel Castro has murdered thousands if not tens of thousands of Cubans in his quest for the Marxist utopia that he envisioned.  Should we invade Cuba?

 

Josef Stalin murdered or starved more than 40 million Soviet citizens (not to mention starting WWII.)  Should we have invaded the Soviet Union and started a nuclear war?  The worst mass murderer in history was Mao Tse-Tung.  That lovable little panda was responsible for the death of more than 70 million Chinese who just couldn't see the benefits of Marxism/Leninism.  (And those are just the ones we know about.)  So, should we have launched an attack on the Chicoms?  If you thought Viet Nam was a quagmire, a land war against a country with a population of three billion would have been a nightmare.

 

Syria and Iran systematically kill anyone who opposes their tyrannical regimes.  Should we now go to war against them?

 

We also are becoming aware (although some of us have known for awhile) that Al Qaeda is taking part in the revolt and its forces are playing a larger and larger role in the Libyan uprising.  If Gadhafi goes, he will just be replaced with another tyrannical regime.  And one that hates us even more!

 

As much as I would like us to destroy evil in the world, I've come to the realization that we can't.  We cannot continue to expend our treasure and, more importantly, the blood of our best and brightest.  In the end, we are still hated and despised,  and we create more enemies for ourselves. 

We cannot create democracies just because we want to.  We cannot re-create the Garden of Eden on earth no matter how well-intentioned we are.   And we certainly cannot put on a blue uniform and badge and become the policeman of the world.

 

I'm not an isolationist, but unless there is a direct threat to our national security, we have no business sticking our nose (and our missiles) in another country's affairs.  If history has shown us anything, it's that it spells disaster. 

And history doesn't lie.

In between golf, picking the NCAA basketball teams and vacationing in Brazil, President Barack Hussein Obama, over the weekend, found a little time to send American warplanes to Libya to attack Muammar Quaddafi's forces that have all but destroyed the revolt against this Libyan tyrants rule. 

I have to admit I'm still surprised at the deafening silence coming from the "We Hate America" crowd on the far, far left.  No calls for impeachment from Code Pink and the rest of the lunatics who think sitting around a campfire singing Kumbaya is a sure cure for war.   No signs comparing Obama to Hitler.  No signs calling him a baby-killer or murderer.  No "No War For Oil" rhetoric.  Surprisingly not much of that happening.

Oh silly me, I forgot; George Bush is not president anymore.

Alas, there is one lone voice crying out in the wilderness and it ain't Glenn Beck or FOX News.  It's an uber-liberal from Ohio.   In a recent FOX News interview, Representative Dennis "I am not ET" Kucinich, D-Ohio read a quote from a famous black American, who criticized President Bush for military action in the Mideast.  Let's see if you can guess who said:

 

"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

 

If you guessed Mike Tyson, you would be wrong.  Unfortunately Mr. Tyson doesn't know what "unilaterally" means.  So that leaves him out. 

 

The author of that very accurate statement is none other than Barack Hussein Obama.  Well, he might have read that on a teleprompter somewhere but he did make that comment on December 20, 2007.

 

He also said: The United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there."

 

And this surprising flash of common sense:  "Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now -- where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife -- which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.   

So you see, this professor of constitutional law actually knows what the constitution says.  He just doesn't think he bound by it.

 

On July 30, 1998, then Senator Joe Biden said in a Senate speech:  "The rationale for vesting the power to launch war in Congress was simple.  The Framers' views were dominated by their experience with the British King, who had unfettered power to start wars. Such powers the Framers were determined to deny the President."

 

In this speech to the Senate, Senator Biden accurately summarized the notes of the Constitutional Convention.

 

"The original draft of the Constitution would have given to Congress the power to 'make war.' At the Constitutional Convention, a motion was made to change this to 'declare war.' The reason for the change is instructive," said Biden.

 

"At the Convention, James Madison and Elbridge Gerry argued for the amendment solely in order to permit the President the power 'to repel sudden attacks,'" said Biden. "Just one delegate, Pierce Butler of South Carolina, suggested that the President should be given the power to initiate war."

 

In citing Federalist No. 69, Biden noted that Alexander Hamilton, who was the most vocal proponent of a strong executive branch, argued that the Constitution gave the president the authority to direct the military in action ONLY after that action was authorized by Congress.

 

"Even Alexander Hamilton, a staunch advocate of Presidential power, emphasized that the President's power as Commander in Chief would be 'much inferior' to the British King, amounting to 'nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces,' while that of the British King 'extends to declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies-all which, by the [U.S.] Constitution, would appertain to the legislature,'" said Biden.

 

In his summation, introducing legislation replacing the 1973 War Powers Resolution, he said:  "Given this, the only logical conclusion is that the framers intended to grant to Congress the power to initiate all hostilities, even limited wars."

 

This aforementioned bill would only allow the president to commit U.S. forces, without Congressional pre-approval only in exigent circumstances, such as:

 

(1)  To repel attack on U.S. territory or U.S. forces; (2) To deal with urgent situations threatening supreme U.S. interests; (3) To extricate imperiled U.S. citizens; (4) To forestall or retaliate against specific acts of terrorism; (5) To defend against substantial threats to international sea lanes or airspace.

 

I know there will be some who point their fingers at George Bush and say "Oh yeah, well what about him.  Didn't he commit troops without a declaration of war?  Well boys and girls, he went to Congress before we went to Afghanistan and Iraq and each time Congress gave its imprimatur.

 

Our Constitution is very specific about who has the authority to send American troops into battle.  Congress and only Congress has that authority. 

 

Once we forget that, we no longer have a president.  We have a king.

Soros's Next Target: Your State
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/soross_next_target_your_state.html

Now that the elections are over and MUCH light is being shined on the shenanigans of George Soros; fellow patriots and taxpayers in these United States should pay particular attention to how 'mr. spooky dude' will continue to capitalize on opportunity, subversively - by foraging into your states politics...

In Florida, he is behind the Progress Florida movement. As one might guess, Soros's idea of progress is diametrically opposed to the concepts of Freedom, Liberty, the pursuit of happiness and YOU. In fact, by his own admission Soros's "America has to learn it's place in the 'New World Order'!"



http://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/files/NPR_liberalnetwork_700px.jpg