That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.

"Obama has been racking up the debt at the rate of $1 trillion a year."

One TRILLION dollars a year.

That's $31,709.79 per second.

Repeat: PER SECOND!!

As of the 2010 Census, there are 281,421,906 people in the US. So, over the course of his presidency, Obama has tossed $20,881.50 onto the debt load of EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN.

What was it this lying thief said when he was running against Bush?

Oh yeah, June, 2008:

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."

Obama has added $5.9 trillion - 1.475 TIMES MORE than Bush and in a shorter time - "by his lonesome."

$31,688.96 "for every man, woman and child."

Hey, Obama never claimed to be patriotic, so he's simply living up to that.

Remember, $31,709.79 per second; he's got 66,843,593.65 seconds to go and the clock is ticking.

$31,709.79 for each tick.

Tick tock, tick tock...

Is The Sequestor All That Big a Deal?

What is this "sequestor" being bandied about on all the fashionable news stations?

Is it the end of the world, or is it just Chicken Little running about crying, "Wolf?"

What it is, is an $85 billion reduction in spending. I can see Obama being antsy about this - after all, he's failed to produce a budget for a long time now and these sorts of big numbers probably upset his apple cart.

Another big number he ignores is the $16.5 TRILLION in debt that he's given us. Is it all his? No, not really. But, bear in mind that it wasn't too long ago that he was berating another president that it was irresponsible and unpatriotic to give us $4 trillion in debt over eight years, while he ups it $6 trillion in just four.

Also bear in mind that mere months ago, the "fiscal cliff" gave us a $630 billion tax hike.

$630 billion vs. $85 billion.

Taxes went UP more than 7 times the amount of the pending spending cuts and Obama and his media cronies are harping about the "disaster" of the sequestor?

Panetta, the good little Obama lapdog that he is, cries out between heaving sobs that he'll have to furlough 800,000 civilian workers.

Really, Larry? Seriously?

Tell us, Larry, if less than 1/7th of the tax hike is being cut, why is it these civilian workers had jobs BEFORE the tax hike?

Give it a rest, Barry and ilk.

And, here's a just a little bit more Sequester Math for your viewing pleasure;

Current Federal Spending: $3.8 trillion.
 "Fiscal Cliff" tax hike: $630 billion
 Sequestor spending cuts: $85 billion

That's a big number, 85. Way bigger than 3.8.

Thing is, there a little difference in letters. The 3.8 is Trillion, with a "t." The 85 is Billion, with a "b."

The difference in those letters is enormous.

1 trillion is 1,000 billion.

What does that mean? Here comes the math;

It means that of the $3,800,000,000,000 that the feds want to spend, they'll only be able to spend $3,715,000,000,000 of it. A whole 2.2% less.

Wow.

Let's put it in terms that are more down to Earth, maybe easier to grasp.

According to the federal government, the national average wage is $42,979.61. That's $826.50 every week.

If this were cut by the same percent as the sequestor is to federal spending, you'd have only $808/week.

That's a cut of only $18.50/week.

Boy, that mean ol' sequestor.

Oh, but don't forget that tax hike coming in. That $808/week will become $945/week.

So, does that $18.50 mean all that much, after all?

Obamacare is Unconstitutional

Obamacare is unconstitutional, plain and simple.


But, the left doesn't care about the Constitution, they've been wiping their feet on it since FDR. To them, it is something to get around, to be avoided, to be spat upon, a source of words that they arrange in any order they like to get what they want.

Unfortunately, the Constitution is nothing more than ink on a page. It has no intrinsic means to provide for its own defense. Without good men to support it, to defend it, it will fail to protect us from the overreaching dictates of those intent upon its destruction - like Obama and his supporters.

Students in schools are taught the falsehood that the Constitution is a "living, breathing" document; that it magically morphs upon the whims of society. Those who support this concept ignore that the Constitution is the SUPREME LAW of the land, not a collection of suggestions, to alter and twist as the majority deems.

The LAW of the Constitution in no way supports Obamacare. It is a wretched and criminal misinterpretation to say that it does. This nation moved closer to death when Roberts cast his vote; he hammered home another nail into the coffin built by FDR and carried by the socialist liberals and progressives of this once-great nation, to sink within the grave dug by an apathetic electorate and a complicit Congress.

Obama must be removed in the coming election. Those in Congress who voted for this sucking chest wound of a law must be voted out as soon as they come up for reelection. We must return to the dream of America, the path the Founding Fathers laid before us, that we left almost a century ago and have refused to tread ever since.

When asked what the Constitution gave us, Ben Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it." Well, our possession of it hangs by a thread, a thread that may well be severed utterly, if Obama and his ilk retain office. A thread that, if broken, may remove our Republic from us irretrievably.

Taxing Behavior is Now Constitutional

The obamacare law is the least of our worries from today's flawed supreme Court decision.


What is far more important is the precedent the Court set by deciding that it is constitutional to tax behavior.

The left is having a field day - well they should as they are in dire straits of losing their messiah in November - their jubilation and foul, crude posts on various blogs demonstrate just how much in fear they were of their pride and joy being denied.

They are cheering now, but if anything is consistent in politics it is that things change.

Someday, there might be a majority in Congress with a friendly Executive that is not quite to their liking. Then, will they be so happy when this political party starts taxing the behavior they want to control?

Be careful on what you cheer about - some day, you may not like how it is applied against you.

How To Lose A Majority

In one easy step...

=============================
Plan Uses Taxes to Fight Climate Change

By H. JOSEF HEBERT
The Associated Press
Wednesday, September 26, 2007; 7:34 PM

WASHINGTON -- Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won't like -- a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners.

"I'm trying to have everybody understand that this is going to cost and that it's going to have a measure of pain that you're not going to like," Rep. John Dingell, who is marking his 52nd year in Congress, said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press.
=============================

Voters don't tend to vote for those who do what they don't like. Republicans found that out in 2006 and the dems don't seem to have been paying attention.

Not Dingell, anyway.