State of the nation is gross incompetence, with a strong dictatorship strain

There is an increasing consensus out there formed over years.

The State Of The Nation: A Dictatorship Without Tears

Source: John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute  | Blacklisted News

“Government incompetence, corruption and lack of accountability continue to result in the loss of vast amounts of money and weapons. A Reuters investigation revealed $8.5 trillion in “taxpayer money doled out by Congress to the Pentagon since 1996 that has never been accounted for.” Then there was the $500 million in Pentagon weapons, aircraft and equipment (small arms, ammunition, night-vision goggles, patrol boats, vehicles and other supplies) that the U.S. military somehow lost track of.”
\
“If this brief catalogue of our national woes proves anything at all, it is that the American experiment in liberty has failed, and as political economist Lawrence Hunter warns, it is only a matter of time before people realize it.”

Read article at: http://www.blacklistednews.com/The_State_Of_The_Nation%3A_A_Dictatorship_Without_Tears/48284/0/38/38/Y/M.html

One may not agree with the entire synopsis but it is hard to disagree with the facts. Actually, the “revolution” that some are calling for is more of the same at a faster pace. Just see the progressives’ talking points for that.

It’s about the about, stupid

This post is about the about. Allow me to explain. We always talk about what the left or globalists are doing and reacting to it. Sometimes we get so busy with documenting what is going on, or the media does, that we don’t spend enough time on getting the bigger picture. By we, I mean the public at large. Those here know better.

A good explanation of this whole subject is a great article Pepp posted on her blog. It diagnoses the cause and effect of basically the treason going on. I recommend it. This is only one aspect of it. We’ve all been aggravated and frustrated with what is going on. We see stories or examples in schools, media and public but it deserves a closer look.

why photo: WHY!?? OneWord-Why.jpgIt all reminded me of something a teacher used to say that stuck with me: “it’s not enough to know what or how to do something, but you have to know why.” That coincides with the article explaining the media connection. It is tough to explain, but stay with me.

I believe, as that article suggested, people are just being fed the scripted play by play news. They report just enough of something to cover the surface. And we’ll know what they want us to. Yet we’re always lectured about context. The context of what is happening is important. A person can be informed but what does it really mean? So it is possible to see the play by play news without understanding the context of the whole picture. Media can only be blamed for part of it. The rest is on the people.

So to put it together as to what is happening in real time with what it means is incredibly important. “You have to know the why too” – or why it matters. It is possible to do things without knowing why in which case it turns you into just a machine. No one wants to be a robot. Even monotonous things have some significance in the greater picture. It’s the same way with current events. You can, as Tom Snyder said, watch the pictures and words fly through the air, but we must grasp the contextual meaning. I see that missing more and more with some people. It’s enough for them only to know what happened.

Seeing the Democrats’ whole platform turn to socialism disturbs us because we know what it means. Those that don’t, or don’t care, are the same mindset of Dems who just go along with it. We are in a pretty bad, dark place when people don’t see why socialism is such a bad thing? History won’t be kind to those who don’t bother to understand.

It’s hard enough even for conservatives on the right to avoid this syndrome by making a constant conscious effort to understand the why seeing the big picture. That is the central problem and theme. So even when we know what is going on, one may not understand the significance, or care to. One can see what happens but not know the agenda.

Democrats have played this “we know” game. They play dumb with the facts. They know enough. They’ve gone to the point of developing a faux reality. Then there is what they want to see or believe. It is convenient for them to accept what they want and discard the rest. Anything inconvenient to their faux reality is wrong. Thus. Democrats’ exuberance for socialism at the debate, or raising the debt limit — never mind what it means.

Context matters

People bought into ObamaCare and all the hype. After the fact, Johnathon Gruber came out to boast how Obamacare passed only thanks to “the stupidity of the American voter” and the lies they were told. Even then Dems didn’t want to believe it. So they carried all the talking points and became useful idiots. They attacked Gruber. Even when known it’s a lie they act as if it was not. Not just a lie, but everything was constructed on one big lie.

funny quote photo: Bye bye Sanity... SanityDeparted-NoForwardingAddress_zpsc1a699ab.jpgThere’s an alternative reality aspect just as there is with Obama. From Benghazi to the green agenda, to Obama’s daily narrative. They buy into it as willing dupes. Even when framed in the most naive way, one should not be able to deny the truth. Not so with Democrats. They can block out anything inconvenient or countering Obama’s narrative. Hillary comes out, ironically, to say “what difference at this point does it make?” That is how it works with the Left. What difference do the facts make? What difference does the truth make? What difference does reality make? What difference does the bigger-what it means-picture make? None. Whether it is they can’t see it or just don’t want to.

So we saw it in virtually every scandal. Fast and Furious, a manufactured scandal. It didn’t matter. In IRS, maliciously targeting people didn’t matter. Solyndra, nothing. Obama playing politics with issues and scandals, nada. Then when Obama came along saying not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS, they repeated it. They knew this much: if they encounter a problem with that statement, Obama and Dems would issue a new one to explain it. That much they depend on. The left only has to repeat the talking points. Obama’s election, reelection, now Hillary and her record of scandals — it doesn’t matter. They become useful idiots.

When Obama calls on Israel to stop the excessive use of force, and State makes an equivalence with Israel and Palestinians committing terrorism, facts and truth don’t matter. Does he not know Israel is under attack? Sure, how can anyone avoid knowing? But he denies it and implies an equivalency. Democrats fall in line and do the same. The Crusades were resurrected as an equivalency to barbaric ISIS terrorists in an Islamic caliphate. Yet Obama cannot admit their religious, Islamic basis for a caliphate.

Hahahahaha!!! photo 529972_3782902340029_937477600_n.jpgThe left claims to believe in the process until it goes against their faux reality. Then, the process like the Benghazi committee is corrupt What difference at this point does it make? Hillary could have been talking about her Democrat base. So they call it a political stunt. But the Benghazi scandal was caused by Obama playing politics. Now the excuse and defense is it is a political witch hunt.

The same thing applied to the Green Agenda when one by one the truth came out. Leftists went into denial pretending it wasn’t so. The same mentality applied to the IRS scandal. The about part, the bigger picture and meaning is ignored. They don’t know or don’t care, either one amounts to the same thing. First, the Left claims facts show there is no there there. Then, when shown, they simply deny it. It’s not just a case of drinking the Kool Aid, they deny the truth when faced with it. They are useful idiots that follow Obama’s lead and Democrat spinsters who never met a scandal they couldn’t spin their way out of. Whether is was Jonestown or under Obama, it has the same effect.

RightRing | Bullright

Trump calls Dem agenda on debate

For months now we’ve been asking Debbie Wasserman Schultz what the difference is between a Democrat and a Socialist? She danced around to avoid answering the question. Now we know why, or let’s say the first debate proved what we already knew. There is none. Socialism is the central component in the left.

But they made sure to demonstrate it loud and clear for any in doubt. The question was never what is socialism but what are Democrats? Socialism for a thousand, Alex.

Dems handled the first Marxist debate how you’d expect. The only thing not open to debate was the state of the Socialists Party. Bernie would not attack Hillary’s email discretions or sever scandal, and Hillary would not condemn Sanders’ socialism.(was there a debate prenuptial?) Thou shalt not attack socialism, and historically an indictable felony is no problem to Democrats. Seeing is believing.

Trump calls Bernie Sanders the ‘C-word’

October 15, 2015 | Michael Dorstewitz | BizPac Review

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump used the “C-word “ to describe Democratic presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, at a rally Wednesday. That’s right, he called him a Communist.

“I watched Hillary last night with, ‘We’re gonna give this, we’re gonna give that, we’re gonna give that’ “ he said, describing the Democratic presidential debate, at a campaign stop in Richmond, Virginia.

“The poor woman, she’s got to give everything away because this maniac that was standing on her right is giving everything away so she’s following. That’s what’s happening. This socialist slash Communist. OK. Nobody wants to say it.”

Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/10/15/trump-calls-bernie-sanders-the-c-word-264121/

Oh, why don’t they just rename it the Progressive Party at least? That’s what they call themselves. PP is same initials as Planned Parenthood. It’s still too early to call it the Marxist or Communist Party that it is, so Progressive Party sounds better.

Conspiracies abound on WH

Well, so it is a fictional one. So what. With this guy in office about anything could happen. Ghouls in the White House wreaking havoc. Didn’t I see that movie already, I thought I did? Anyway it’s just a play, just entertainment, according to the creators.

Feds Spend $60,000 for Play About First Gay President Who Fights Zombies in WH Basement

Also an ‘adulterous First Gentleman’
BY: Elizabeth Harrington | Washington Free Beacon
October 9, 2015 2:35 pm

The National Endowment for the Arts gave $60,000 for the production of a play about the first openly gay president of the United States who has to fight zombies in the basement, and who has a cheating First Man.

Sen. Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.) highlighted the grant for “Zombie: The American” in his running series meant to expose wasteful spending.

“The year is 2063 and Thom Valentine, the first openly gay President of the United States, faces a host of problems,” reads the Woolley Mammoth Theater Company’s description of the play. “An imminent civil war, the threat of an African invasion, an adulterous First Gentleman, and zombies in the basement of the White House!”

“With his power, his marriage, and the nation’s well-being at stake, he must decide what he cares most about saving … and at what cost.”

More: http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-spend-60000-for-play-about-first-gay-president-who-fights-zombies-in-wh-basement/

Whoa, orgasmic plot line! Could happen, you say? What else could they throw in… werewolves, zombies and sex? How about lies, scandals, usurpation and treason? Right, fiction. If someone endowed me with about 60.000 dollars, I think I could bring a good fictional, entertaining plot to fruition. It might be a tad better and more practical. The script is macabre and also has some wild characters.

What’s a Liberal Mayor to Do?

Well, if you are Rahm Emanuel and it is Chicago, there can be only one answer to that question? Raise taxes… it’s always the solution.

So Rahm proposes raising taxes a half-billion dollars, or a measly 500 million, just to tide them over until, well, the next tax increase.

He suggested a choice between drastic cuts and raising taxes. Now who always wins that battle? Right. It could have something to do with big union contracts and the inability to keep these big lucrative contracts flowing like wild honey. Incidentally, the one business probably thriving above all others in Chicago are the Funeral parlors. (another story)

Good thing “Chicago is thriving” as he called it, otherwise it might not be able to afford the tax hike.(sort of a joke) It’s what Rahm calls “progressive” so at least there’s that.
Rahm Emanuel gave a speech where he said:

AOL

“In short, if we were to fund our pensions with cuts alone, our city services would become unreliable. Our city would become unlivable. And that would be totally unacceptable.”

Isn’t that one hell of an admission? (think about that) Outrageous. I mean if the cost to float those contracts requires a 20% cut to the police force, losing 48 fire departments and 40% of firefighters — just to afford them — then what in the world is in those contracts? Wouldn’t any sane person say wonder if and how they could afford those contracts?

So the answer is to raise the taxes — good thing they can afford them, uh? Right, rather save the contracts by raising taxes. No losses there. Or tell people that they will lose all their services they already paid for, if the city doesn’t raise taxes.(Is there a hostage negotiator in the house) Don’t worry because he calls it a “progressive” approach — who can dislike anything progressive? Guess what? Even Chicago Dems do not like hikes.

Hey big spender, Bernie

The beauty, or should I say lie, of a Democrat plan. Or is it really a socialist plan? In any case it is.

Bernie Sanders is again touting his jobs plan as the cure for unemployment problems, particularly younger people. But it is not a jobs plan at all, its a big-spending plan, by big government of course. Bloomberg news: 5.5 billion to employ 1 million young people.

[June]The legislation, introduced by Michigan Representative John Conyers, would create a $5.5 billion fund, $4 billion earmarked for the employment of people between 16 and 24, $1.5 billion for job training grants. There are no pay-fors. It would ask a Congress that is dead-set against “big government” to employ people, with the help of big government.

Bernster already received ringing praise and an endorsement on it from Robert Reich. Birds of the feather. Reich said it is a perfect time for this spending plan to take advantage of low borrowing rates. Yea, that’s the ticket.

Chris Hayes(MSNBC) called this one of the longest post-war economic expansions ever recorded. (stop laughing people) Sander’ plan, “direct 200 bln dollars a year for 5 years” on infrastructure spending, “we got a multiplier effect.”(remember Obama’s spending on those “shovel-ready” jobs — shoveling money. What multiplied was our debt)

The economy: “It’s growing…at this point one of the most enduring post-war expansions we have ever seen,” said Hayes.

Reich: “I tell you why I think its a very good idea and a very important idea: number one, because we can borrow at very,very low interest rates right now. Number two, you still have a lot of people who are not only out of work,…. Number three, you have a crumbling infrastructure. You have roads and bridges, and pipes, and rapid transit systems that are all falling apart [sort of like Hillary Clinton’s campaign.] all over America. Put those three together and it’s logical this kind of plan is necessary.

“I think she’d make an excellent president. … and in terms of policies, he [Bernie] is very much articulating the kind of things that are needed in this country. I mean I think he is allowing, because he is, ah, kind of creating territory for Hillary to move into. He is allowing Hillary, the Democratic candidate, I think, whoever that is, to be a little bit more bolder than otherwise. But this country, right now, really needs boldness.”

So just to be clear, we aren’t talking about jobs really at all but spending — big-government spending. It’s the answer to everything. “Spending, got some?”

No surprise at what Bernie Sanders is actually doing. He’s just laying out the socialist Left flank for Hillary, er so she doesn’t have to.(all those people at rallies, haha) When the time comes, it all merges to Hillary Clinton. Sanders is only a bold, big-spending placeholder.

Answer to Baltimore’s woes: Mo’-Money

Whenever there is a question about conditions in Baltimore, the answer is always more money. Maybe that isn’t completely fair.

Well, the first answer is what is being spent is just not being “spread evenly”.

Trouble in Baltimore

So if you just apply more ointment (money) to the wounds (conditions), it will bring everything right up to standards. Or something like that.

That’s the sales pitch anyway. See right before the riots, Mayor Chaos-Blake was in the process of doing just that, asking (Republicans) for mo’ money for schools. (and stuff)

And darn it, now she’ll probably have to go ask for even more because the people are destroying the city. Not to mention the very students in those schools developed a penchant for chucking rocks and bricks at police. But never mind that now.

Anyway, they are all only doing that because they don’t get or have enough money. If you will only give them more money, they will not be destroying their neighborhoods.(no proof but so what?) It’s so simple. Spend now, or spend more later…. or both. See video below.

Donna Edwards: Wealth needs to spread more in Baltimore.

Translation: Just spread that wealth like peanut butter and we’ll tell you when to stop. We can’t manage our city but we know when enough is enough, trust us.

Obama meets Obama …calls him unpatriotic

Sort of. I love it when a plan comes together.

Flashback: “pay as you go” candidate Obama:

Dems are in a big tizzy over Giuliani’s statement that Obama doesn’t love America.

“I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America,” Giuliani is quoted as saying. “He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.”

Obama slammed George Bush as unpatriotic for spending 4 trillion dollars. Now is there any doubt about Obama’s huge appetite for spending? (Or buying votes as some call it)

And he said this the day before the 4h of July – probably unaware of what the 4th is.

Now Giuliani says Obama doesn’t love America and you’d think the world came to a screeching halt.Debbie Schultz is outraged. But he qualified his remarks by saying

“He’s a patriot, I’m sure. What I’m saying is that, in his rhetoric, I very rarely hear him say the things that I used to hear Ronald Reagan say, the things I used to hear Bill Clinton say, about how much he loves America. I do hear him criticize America much more often than other American presidents.”

In 2009, after election, VP Joe lectured on the wisdom of spending money.

Patriotism is now big-spending and fashionable. Love for America takes a backseat to that spending …and political ideology… every time.

Evidently, times have really changed since 2008. If Biden was right, then thanks to Obama this country will never go bankrupt. Giuliani might have hit more than one nerve in the Obama camp.Finally, someone says publicly what Americans are thinking.

A few words about the SOTU

You may think you know what Obama will say in his SOTU speech, but I know what he will say. (…so says my satirical pen)

  • Valerie Jarrett could not speak tonight, so I will.
  • The only war we will engage in is class warfare. And that war will never end.
  • I’m officially changing the name “Uncle Sam” to Uncle Obama.
  • Peace through appeasement.
  • Now, for my next trick I will pull out my veto pen.
  • Stealing people’s money and spending it is now called investment.
  • Elections have reactions not consequences.
  • You didn’t build that, but I did.
  • If memory serves me,  and it should….

Just a few of the highlights. The WH has been asking its minions to sign up “are you in?” to say they will watch, so expect much more. Word is some straw men will be attending, too.

Christmas CRomnibus

Christmas came early this year for Obama. While he attended a Christmas party, the House elves passed the aka CRamnibus bill, which contained funding for Obamacare to next September and the stocking-stuffer funding for his illegal amnesty.christmas bells photo: Christmas bells 3DChristmasbells-1.gif

CROmnibus: The $1 Trillion Betrayal

By James Simpson | December 11, 2014 | American Thinker

Flush from an unprecedented nationwide GOP victory in this November’s elections, House and Senate GOP leadership determined that their essential first course of action should be to snatch defeat from its jaws. They have brought forth a spending bill for 2015 that gives President Obama almost everything he wants, while disenfranchising the very voters who delivered the GOP victory.

The $1.014 trillion Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, (HR 83), has been dubbed “CROmnibus” as it is a combined continuing resolution (CR) and Omnibus spending bill. It will provide full funding for 11 of the 12 annual appropriations bills to the end of FY 2015 (September 30th), and a short term continuing resolution to February 27 for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The 1,603 Page Cromnibus

Speaker Boehner has said he would ensure members a minimum of 72 hours to read legislation. Instead, following former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s innovative “pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it” policy, there will only be a tiny window of no more than 52 hours to read, analyze and vote on a trillion dollar spending bill that is 1,603 pages long. For reference, the Bible (NKJV) is only 1,200 pages. In 2010, incoming Speaker Boehner sang a different tune, “I do not believe that having 2,000-page bills on the House floor serves anyone’s best interests, not the House, not for the members and certainly not for the American people,” he said. But he also said he was going to cut spending…

Read more in the list of stocking stuffers: American Thinker

They start by writing in the extraordinary ability for appropriations to make changes after its passage.

In what seemed like a game of role reversal, Dems objected to the bill and Queen Elizabeth Warren was leading opposition which would shut down Government — and subsequently time as we know it.

For his part, Boehner was shoveling out a 1600-page bill without allowing time  to actually read it. Boehner was also allying with Obama to push it through, in much the way Obamacare was rammed through.  Maybe it was theater night at the Capitol?

The analysis of this Christmas CRamnibus is going to take some time to decipher, especially regarding their rule.  With these Christmas festivities, one wonders what is in store for New Years? With Dems offering their best Scrooge impression, these theatrics won’t be over soon.   This spectator says “bah-humbug” to all their chicanery.

Wait, I think that’s the White House blasting critics: “You’re A Mean One, Mr. Grinch!

RightRing | Bullright

Hey, big spenders…

Teachers Unions Spent Big, Lost Big

Record-breaking spending wasted on lost Senate seats, govr’s mansions
BY: Bill McMorris – November 7, 2014 | WFB

The nation’s largest teachers unions blew about $60 million of their members’ money on the disastrous 2014 midterms elections.

The record-breaking campaigns waged by the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, which represent more than 4 million educators nationwide, did little to stem the Republican wave.

The NEA was the second-largest Super PAC donor of the 2014 cycle, spending more than $22 million to aid Democratic candidates for federal office. The federal spending was on top of an estimated $28 million push at the state and local level. The NEA declined an interview request to discuss the election results and its political strategy moving forward.

The AFT had said it planned on spending $20 million during the 2014 cycle, a ten-fold increase from the $2 million it spent on 2010, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The AFT did not return request for comment. AFT President Randi Weingarten said that Democratic candidates suffered from President Obama’s unpopularity among the electorate.

More at: http://freebeacon.com/issues/teachers-unions-spent-big-lost-big/

If they just had a little mo’ money! Haha Now they know where their union money is going. They were determined to spend to defeat their opponents, which are us the American taxpayers. And this was just a midterm. Note the 2010 spending by comparison.

So their objective was to spend as much as they could to overcome Obama’s unpopularity. And they lost. Maybe his unpopularity cannot be compensated for? They were campaigning against Obama, I like that.

Here’s to you teach’s, and Randi Weingarten.

Maybe they need to spend a little time with the common folk. (not the common core)

Obama is the caricature he attacks

Obama is the caricature he always ran against.

Obama has created a fictitious caricature of his opposition since the beginning. And loaded it with plenty of straw man arguments, too. Most as specious as the design.

We all know what Ohama has railed against but in actuality he is everything he criticizes.Think of the big spending elite ruling class.

  • Rails against racism whether overt or couched and seems to see it everywhere, except in himself.
  • against big business’s influence in politics
  • out of control spending
  • the elite ruling class making decisions above the purview of the people
  • Foreign policy run amok.
  • a corrupt administration abusing its power
  • constipated government, incapable of making good decisions
  • fat cat politicians disconnected from the people.

In reality, he is all that he attacks and more. He is the poster child for abusive government. He is the classic example of nontransparent government. He runs against government failure while being a product of failure. He claims to be the best ally Israel ever had.

If there was an award for lies, he would be king of the competition.

He nick-named himself as “no drama Obama” and is now anything but. Obama is synonymous with failure. He supposedly stands for healthcare for everyone that will save lives, while he is the biggest proponent for abortion and Planned Parenthood.

When Obama ran against Bobby Rush and lost, he was crushed. He was jilted and rejected. He wondered about running again. Now the inner conflict returns. I wish he were just another Congressman or Senator. Hope and change means: hope nothing changes.

In 2000, then Bobby Rush quipped about Obama:

Rush slammed Obama in an interview with The Chicago Reader published on March 17, 2000, saying, “He went to Harvard and became an educated fool,” adding, “We’re not impressed with these folks with these eastern elite degrees.”

So then, why on earth would the black community be so impressed with him now, using civil rights as nothing more than a whipping post?

RightRing | Bullright

Ed Schultz praising socialism

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Praises Germany: ‘Here’s Some Good Socialism!’

By Scott Whitlock | October 2, 2014 |

Liberal MSNBC anchor Ed Schultz could barely contain himself on Thursday as he gushed over Germany’s “socialism.” The country officially scrapped tuition fees and this sent Schultz into a fit of envy: “We need to take a page out of the country Germany. Here’s some good socialism for you!” [MP3 audio here.]

After discussing bailouts of Wall Street, Schultz enthused, “This week, Germany abolished all tuition fees, not some. All! A college education is now free in this country. Free.” (Because if a government deems something “free,” that means nobody has to pay, right?) The host concluded, “In this country, Germany, education is a right. Not a privilege. So different here, isn’t it?”

Schultz then brought on socialist Senator Bernie Sanders. In 2011, the liberal journalist declared Sanders his “favorite.”

In 2010, while calling for a return of the Fairness Doctrine, Schultz lobbied for “socialism” on the airwaves.

Schultz isn’t shy about his affinity for “socialism.” Considering his extremely low cable ratings, perhaps there’s a reason he wants to spread the wealth around.

A partial transcript of the October 2 segment is below:

ED SCHULTZ: Here’s an idea for you. How about a bailout for student loan debt across America? Now, in 2008, the government had no problem throwing over $700 billion of taxpayer money at Wall Street. How about the government throwing 700 billion dollars at the middle class in this country and let’s start with the 20 and 30-somethings and the folks that have college loan debt out there?

SCHULTZ: We need to take a page out of the country Germany. Here’s some good socialism for you! This week, Germany abolished all tuition fees, not some. All! A college education is now free in this country. Free. Education is not a right, is it? No, wait a minute. In this country, Germany, education is a right. Not a privilege. So different here, isn’t it?

Newsbusters

Maybe Schultz and Bernie Sanders could form a nice socialist government themselves somewhere. Right, that would require a whole lot of help.

Can you say waste and abuse?

GOP blasts $215M cost for consumer bureau office with waterfall

By Tim Devaney – 07/02/14 | The Hill

Republican lawmakers blasted renovation plans for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s headquarters after an inspector general report said costs could top $215 million.

Federal Reserve inspector general Mark Bialek wrote that a “sound business case” cannot be made for renovating the building the agency rents at 1700 G St. NW, near the White House.

When first announced four years ago, the renovation project had a $55 million pricetag. By 2012, the CFPB revised the projected cost to $95 million and again last year raised the estimate to $150.8 million.

The CFPB’s renovations, which include a four-story glass staircase, two-story waterfall and a sunken garden, have angered House Republicans who say the agency is being wasteful with taxpayers’ money.

“When they passed the Dodd-Frank Act, Democrats in Congress and the White House made the CFPB unaccountable to taxpayers and to Congress,” House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) said in a statement.

“We’re seeing the results of this dangerous unaccountability today in a Washington bureaucracy that is running amok, spending as much as it wants on whatever it wants,” he continued. “It’s outrageous.”

In January, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), chairman of the Financial Services subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, requested the inspector general report, which his panel released Wednesday.

McHenry slammed the CFPB, calling the findings “deeply troubling.”

“The continuously growing price tag is a tremendous waste of funds and, amazingly, there is still no assurance the $215 million price tag won’t grow higher,” he said in a statement.

McHenry pointed out that the CFPB is spending more than $590 per square foot to renovate the building — far more than the comparative costs for building the Trump World Tower in New York ($334) and Bellagio Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas ($330).

The CFPB did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the inspector general’s report.

Before Congress in January, CFPB Director Richard Cordray, though, defended the renovations.

Cordray said the agency had selected a “tough building” but denied charges that the renovations were opulent and wasteful.

“The notion that we would try to build some kind of palace that we don’t own or control makes no sense to me,” he told lawmakers.

The renovation costs are only the latest controversy to hit the CFPB, which has been in the crosshairs of House Republicans since it was created. GOP lawmakers have long questioned the structure of the independent agency, because it does not rely on Congress for funding.

Recently, CFPB employees also accused the management of workplace discrimination. One black employee even compared it to working in a “plantation.”

Republicans have seized on those controversies, arguing that the agency needs more congressional oversight.

McHenry on Wednesday said the agency was “unaccountable” to Congress.

“The findings of the inspector general’s investigation are deeply troubling and lead to even more questions about the unaccountable design of the CFPB,” McHenry said.

“It has become abundantly clear that it’s not 1700 G Street that needs an overhaul, but rather the entire structure of the CFPB,” he added. – The Hill

 

So, 590.00 per square foot for a renovation? Apparently they don’t see this as excessive, on a building they don’t even own. I know, this had to be another intentional poke in the eye. How could they not notice this abuse?  If not, I have a water feature they might be interested in trying.

Well, as former congressman James Traficant used to say: “Beam me up, Scotty!”

Give me a “W”. Give me an “A”…….

Willful Intent

Though it steps on one of my drafts, there is growing suspicion about Obama’s intent as to all these problems.

For months and longer, a debate has raged over Obama’s intentional destruction of America. Some see the damage as as collateral, some see it as the main objective. Whatever your opinion on it, that is finally coming around.

Bill O’Reilly of all people has begun talking about the willful intent in these problems and scandals. He also had Krauthammer on who artfully explained the scenario of Obama’s willful behavior, as only Charles can.

 

Krauthammer said that things are pretty bad, but noted, “There’s a big difference between decline as a condition and decline as a choice. What we have with Obama is a president choosing decline.”

At the least, the problems are the natural results of his ideology and policies. On the further end, the results are fully intentional. Well, in either case all is working according to plan. They are using the ideas they want, and they are having their negative affects.

From the Liberals’ perspective, the only problem is getting people to see both ideas and results as good. A segment of his base will see everything he does as good, and therefore accept any results as good — even if actually bad. This is where the Democrats’ spin comes in handy. Convince people to see a negative as a positive.

Now we are back to that scripture: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)

Now we have lots of people finally coming out on the side of willful intent, seeing the results of Obama’s actions as intentional. But that makes sense because to try to blame it all as accidental is about impossible.

On 6/24, in his talking points, O’Reilly admitted that the early criticisms — aside from qualifications and religion — of right-wing conservatives was true. A big admission for Bill that only took 6 years. But the first clue might have been Obama using his campaign as his resume’. Maybe O’Reilly missed that obvious clue.

RightRing | Bullright

Leadership failures…and that giant sucking sound

Not what you might think, but the disconnect of leaders 1)to listen 2) to be held accountable to the people 3) their lack of respect for the people.

I showed the leadership disconnect in churches, among clergy and leaders, now its time to connect the dots. The same condition is rotting politics from inside out in the cesspool we call Washington. The similarities are amazing.

Time and again the leaders(for lack of other term) have been out on these margins like space aliens. They make decisions or take positions contrary to the people. We saw it with ObamaCare, we saw it with Benghazi or trade and release of detainees. We see it with border failures and Obama’s executive pen on immigration.

Then we’re told that the “people will like it when they see it”. We still don’t like ObamaCare and don’t like the amnesty they’re cooking up. People didn’t like the porkufest deals to ram ObamaCare through or the whole process they used, or that big-spending spinathon attached to it. And people didn’t like the results any better.

What Americans actually do care about is not on politicians radar. They have operated like Obama playing golf in a crisis, oblivious to the people. When we say rein in spending, Washington says expand spending. Remember Biden said, “we have to spend more to keep from going bankrupt”.

So they are elected and then take a vow to their self-interest and self-preservation. Buying votes trumps listening to voters. But you sort of come to expect as much in Washington. Now that it is business as usual, people just accept it. Aside from all the scandals the administration is engrossed in.

Then they believe they will force their agenda on the people. See the similarities? It’s the same thing in many churches. We’ll tell you what your opinion on this or that ought to be. And if you still don’t agree, too bad, we’ll do it anyway. Pols also have the power of the media in their favor, so you will just get inundated. It’s their way or the highway.

They kindly point out that we are just a divided society now, and that’s where the problem is. The real division is between the people and the politicians. Dream Act anyone? Amnesty? Pipelines or EPA regulations? If you don’t like what they do, they say they will fix the problems — the same ones who created the mess and the same ill will they used doing it.

Leftist politicians are fond of claiming to speak for Americans, things like: “what Americans want” or “what American’s care about”. The same dynamic applies in churches: bishops or de facto leaders claiming to speak for the whole, in name, when it does not align with the people’s priorities.

It all speaks loudly about a giant problem, ignoring the will of people, by an elite “we know better” government and leaders. Both parties participate. We’ve come to expect their business as usual, even as we condemn their “business as usual” model.

RightRing | Bullright

Bridge to Nowhere meet Farrakhan’s farm

I don’t normally link to Facebook but this is interesting.

Farrakhan Receives 103K in Farm Subsidies In Obama’s Old Chicago Neighborhood (Hyde Park)

I guess it’s all about who you know, because there isn’t a farm in sight for 30 miles…

Open the Books just completed and released a new report called, “The Federal Transfer Report- Farm Subsidies & The Big Dogs” Within the report, the group discovered this:

Case Study: Three Year Economic Savings Program, Inc., Hyde Park, 60615. A non-profit organization called Three Year Economic Savings Program, Inc received 19 payments totaling $103,529 (2008-11). The address matches Louis Farrakhan’s home and mosque address. It is known as Muhammad Farms…

See more at Grassroot Journal

Obama debt, disaster and deceit … are always looming

Professor of fiscal irresponsibility, Obama, enlightened us in his press conference:

    “So let me explain this. If Congress refuses to raise what’s called the debt ceiling, America would not be able to meet all of our financial obligations for the first time in 225 years.
    And because it's called raising the debt ceiling, I think a lot of Americans think it's raising our debt. It is not raising our debt. This does not add a dime to our debt.
    It simply says you pay for what Congress has already authorized America to purchase, whether that’s the greatest military in the world or veterans’ benefits or Social Security. Whatever it is that Congress has already authorized, what this does is make sure that we can pay those bills.
    Now the last time that the tea party Republicans flirted with the idea of default, two years ago, markets plunged, business and consumer confidence plunged, America’s credit rating was downgraded for the first time, and a decision to actually go through with it, to actually permit default, according to many CEOs and economists, would be — and I’m quoting here — “insane, catastrophic, chaos” — these are some of the more polite words.
    Warren Buffett likened default to a nuclear bomb, a weapon too horrible to use. It would disrupt markets, it would undermine the world’s confidence in America as the bedrock of the global economy, and it might permanently increase our borrowing costs which, of course, ironically would mean that it would be more expensive for us to service what debt we do have and it would add to our deficits and our debt, not decrease them.
    There’s nothing fiscally responsible about that. Preventing this should be simple. As I said, raising the debt ceiling is a lousy name, which is why members of Congress in both parties don’t like to vote on it, because it makes you vulnerable in political campaigns. But it does not increase our debt. It does not grow our deficit, it does not allow for a single dime of increased spending. All it does is allow the Treasury Department to pay for what Congress has already spent.”
More Washington Post

So let’s review. Raising the debt ceiling does not add a dime to the debt, but not raising it adds to the deficit and debt. Got it? He can see how increased borrowing costs add to our debt; but raising the debt ceiling — because we are right up against it — does not add anything to debt. Nope.

Gross
Federal Debt
Debt Held
by Public
Debt Held by
Federal Reserve
FY 2014* $18.2 trillion $11.6 trillion $1.6 trillion
FY 2013* $17.2 trillion $10.7 trillion $1.6 trillion
FY 2012 $16.1 trillion $9.6 trillion $1.6 trillion
FY 2011 $14.8 trillion $8.5 trillion $1.7 trillion
FY 2010 $13.5 trillion $8.2 trillion $0.8 trillion
FY 2009 $11.9 trillion $6.8 trillion $0.8 trillion

How many times have we increased the debt ceiling under Obama? A few now. Why? I suggest the debt ceiling has been raised many times, over time, which allowed the debt to rise. How else could the debt have risen above the ceiling ? So why, then, do they always link hitting the debt ceiling with default — if they are not going to add to the debt?

    Government debt in the United States has steadily increased from $2 trillion in the mid 1980s to over $17 trillion today. But as a percent of GDP it has grown from 55 percent to over 100 percent of GDP today.
    In the Crash of 2008 government debt increased sharply to bail out the banks and to provide “stimulus” to the economy. Debt reached 104 percent of GDP in 2009. But debt is expected to plateau at about 122 percent of GDP in the next few years.

But maybe in Obama’s world the GDP could be just shrinking that much.

 
Then he closed his box of tricks with this:

Now, the good news is… Our housing market is healing; we’ve cut the deficit in half. Since I took office, the deficit is coming down faster than any time in the last 50 years.

He has some real sophistry working there. Note he is talking about the “deficit” now. So if the budget deficit beginning in his first term was running all time highs, then he has decreased it from that level. Gee, see isn’t that great?

If its so great then why do we have to keep raising the debt ceiling again and again?(and probably again in the near future.) Could it be that we were so far beyond budget limits that anything short of that looks like a big improvement?

Source: http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/