Group Calls on Congress to Suspend NIH Grants After China Receives $90 Million

===================

July 30, 2011

A conservative group is calling on Congress to temporarily suspend funding to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) after releasing a study that found the agency wasted half a billion dollars in taxpayer money on “bizarre projects,” and gave more than $90 million to China, America’s largest creditor, over the last decade for other research.

The Traditional Values Coalition, which represents 43,000 churches across the country, sent a letter to Appropriations Committees in both houses of Congress this week urging them to freeze funding for six months while investigating the agency’s research practices that are “striking working families across America as wasteful, illicit, and in many cases outright offensive.”

As part of its six-month investigation into NIH’s budget, the coalition discovered that the agency awarded more than $90 million to the Chinese government over the last decade, including $30 million in the last two and half years alone to scientists working at Chinese universities and institutions to research medical issues that affect Chinese citizens.

The coalition has also found that NIH has paid more than half a billion in funding grants to researchers to “conduct bizarre projects such as trying to find out if a mother rat will abandon her babies if given cocaine, and asking individuals to mail in their toenail clippings.”

“As our country heads to fiscal ruin, why are we giving millions in taxpayer dollars to Chinese science – which benefits China and its institutions – when they hold more than $1 trillion in American debt?” asked Andrea Lafferty, president of the TVC.

“It is simply unacceptable for the NIH to pay Chinese researchers to study acupuncture, or fund international research, when we are struggling to pay our own debts,” she said. “That China, our biggest creditor, is the recipient makes this waste all the more credible.”

China has also received a $718,000 EPA grant over the last decade for “air pollution” efforts.

The NIH-funded projects include $2 million for Chinese and American scientists to develop a vaccine against parasites that affect water buffalo, snails and about 1 million Chinese citizens.

Continue reading here…….

=======================

Related LINK: Read by clicking on blue letters

Want to Know WHAT $$ go OUT of Washington? “Raising the Debt Ceiling” For Dummies

=======================

“Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.”

~~Ronald Reagan

==========================

=======================

Want to Know WHAT $$ go OUT of Washington? “Raising the Debt Ceiling” For Dummies

===================

From Trevor Loudon:

“Raising the Debt Ceiling” For Dummies

By AJ at NoisyRoom

July 30, 2011

Lost in all the politics of raising the debt ceiling is a simple understanding of why it is so dangerous to do so.

The government-controlled media is trying to ensure that the public doesn’t have the facts, lacks a clear understanding of the problem and chooses sides based on emotion.

The fact is, at the end of 2008, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported, “At the end of 2008, that debt equaled 40 percent of the nation’s annual economic output (a little above the 40-year average of 37 percent). Since then, the figure has shot upward: By the end of fiscal year 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects federal debt will reach roughly 70 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) — the highest percentage since shortly after World War II.”

The entire US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for 2010 was $14.62 Trillion. The US debt ceiling currently stands at $14.294 Trillion, which was exceeded in May of 2011. Obama and Congress will be raising the debt ceiling well above our US GDP. Does this make America economically stronger or weaker?

To clarify what the rating agencies said, “Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s credit rating services issued warnings that United States could be downgraded because of the continued large deficits and increasing debt.”

To say that our government is simply spending more than it takes in is an understatement when it comes to the out-of-control spending we’ve experienced under President Obama; what he’s doing is dangerous. He has spent about $12.2 Trillion in just 3 years; that’s $5.15 Trillion more than the approximate $7.05 Trillion that was given to him by taxpayers.

Obama has made America the largest debtor-nation in the history of the world and fully intends to keep spending.

To put this into perspective, let’s look at it this way… It’s like a person spending $86,500 a year when they only bring home $50,000. How long will creditors keep loaning money to this person… especially if this person says they refuse to meaningfully cut their spending and instead expects to increase it every year?

Let’s look at it another way… It took roughly 220 years for our nation to accumulate $5.181 Trillion in debt which occurred in 1996. From 1996 to the end of 2008 (12 years), another $4.473 Trillion was added to our national debt, which is why we screamed for Bush to stop spending. Obama is adding $5.15 Trillion in just 3 years. What he’s doing is dangerous.

So, if you’re not screaming for Obama to stop spending, why not? Raising the debt ceiling without significant strings attached gives him the blank checks he needs to plunge us even further into debt. He refuses to cut spending and dishonestly threatens our creditors, seniors and others in hopes they’ll support him out of fear. He’s historic alright; no President in the history of our nation has ever threatened its citizens or its creditors in this way.

Obama isn’t spending our money to help improve the lives of America’s poor, seniors, veterans, homeless, minorities or others we care deeply about. Here’s just a taste of his real priorities… where he’s been spending our money and what our kids and grandkids will be expected to repay for decades to come:

OVERSEAS

PROPAGANDA ORGANIZATIONS

GROW GOVERNMENT

GLOBAL WARMING

$880 Billion is being spent on these items alone in 2011. Are these discretionary expenditures worthy of collapsing America’s economy at a time when we need to reign in spending? If Obama continues to refuse to cut spending, that’s just what will happen.

Don’t be fooled by the propaganda coming from Obama and his regime – to include his MoveOn.org pals. They’re doing George Soros’ bidding. If you haven’t heard, Soros wants a ‘managed decline’ of our dollar and an economic collapse is exactly what he wants. Obama’s actions are clearly leading to what Soros wants.

It’s dangerous to raise the debt ceiling without significant cuts and caps on Obama’s spending and a legislative balanced-budget amendment to prevent future Presidents from doing what Obama’s doing to America.

LINK

====================

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan 

 

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

Ronald Reagan 

 

Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States.

Ronald Reagan

 

 

***

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!
Ronald Reagan 

 

*****

How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

Ronald Reagan 

 

 

***************

“The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.”

 -Samuel Adams”

Washington Plan for Budget? SEN.MARCO RUBIO RAILS ON DEBT CRISIS HYPOCRISY FOR 14:02 (AND JOHN KERRY DOESN’T LIKE IT)

==========================

==================

***Watch the entire video.  Common Sense reigns.***

During by far the most dramatic 24 hours of debt limit negotiations that have had a chokehold on American politics and government since January, Sen.Marco Rubio’s remarks followed by debate with Sen. John Kerry on the Senate floor this afternoon perhaps no better captures the frustration of freshman Republicans, hypocrisy of current political rhetoric, and inability of opposing sides to form real solutions.

If my house was on fire, I can’t compromise about which part of the house I am going to save. You save the whole house, or it will all burn down.”

Sen. Rubio’s complete remarks on the Senate floor Saturday:

“Thank you, Mr. President.

I rise here on the Senate floor today to speak on the tremendous issue that’s captivated, and rightfully so, the attention of our country.

Let me start by saying that I do not enjoy nor relish the partisan role of attack dog. I never found any fun in that. I don’t think it’s constructive.  I don’t intend to become that here in the Senate.

I also have only been here for seven months, which means I haven‘t been here long enough to think any of the stuff that’s going on is normal. And I certainly don’t think any of the stuff that goes on around here too often is normal. So I think the fact that I’ve been here seven months has served me well in that regard.

Let me begin if I can. One of the things that I’ve noticed this week is that Washington is full of people from all over the world and all over the country that have traveled here this week to come and watch their government at work and see the monuments of the city and found themselves in the middle of this debate

So I think it’s important to remind people what we’re debating because although it is a difficult and important issue, it is not a complicated one to understand. It’s pretty straight forward.

And here’s the way I would describe it the United States of America more or less — these are rough numbers but they’re accurate – spends about $300 billion a month. It has $180 billion a month that comes to the federal government through taxes and other sources of revenue and that means that in order to meet its bills at the end of every month it needs to borrow $120 billion.

Now, for much of the history of this country, there have been increases in the debt limit and the ability to borrow money. But what has happened over the last few years is that it’s no longer a routine vote because the people who give us our credit rating are saying too much of the money that you spend every month is borrowed and we want you to show us how over the next ten years you are going to borrow less as a percentage of what you spend.

And so that’s why, for years, where the debt limit was routine vote, it no longer can be. It’s not something that was made up in some conservative think tank. But the reality that we cannot continue to borrow 40% to 41% of every penny that the government spends has brought us to this point.

So you would think that seeing that, our government and our leaders here in both parties would react to that immediately and work on it.

And I’ve heard lot of talk today about delaying tactics and delaying votes. I would argue to you that this issue has been delayed at least for the last two and a half years.

In the two years before I even came here, this chamber neither proposed nor passed a budget. It is a startling figure that for the last two years this government has operated without a budget. So think about that. Two years have gone by without a budget. The first two years that the President was the president, no budgets.

Some people would say, well, that’s because of partisanship in Washington. Well, that’s not true. In the two years before I got here, both the House and Senate were controlled by members of the Democratic Party, which are the President’s party. In fact, in this chamber for at least one of those two years, 60 votes, 60 out of the 100 members here caucused with the Democrats. And as you recall, on Christmas Eve of the year 2009, they were able to pass a health care bill that was very controversial because they had the 60 votes in the President’s party.

Over two years, no budget. In fact you know how long it has been since this chamber proposed a budget? Forget passed a budget, proposed a budget? 822 days. That’s a long time. A lot of things have happened in the last 822 days, but proposing a budget is not one of them out of this chamber.

So then I got here – and we got here in January, seven months have passed, still no budget. Again, not budget passed, proposed, offered. Here’s our budget. Still no budget. 822 Days and every single day that I’ve been here.

Now, in the last seven days on this debt debate, we have finally seen a proposal from the esteemed senator from Nevada, the majority leader. You would think, has he brought it to the floor to vote? Not until last night. So, again, offered a proposal over the weekend and still for six days we sat around and what did we do around here? Nothing. It was never brought to a vote.

You would think these issues would have been worked on in January, February, March — nothing. This chamber has done nothing. You talk about delay tactics? They’ve been delaying for two and a half years.

Now the President doesn’t have the luxury of some of these things. He has to propose a budget by law, and he did. Let me tell you how ridiculous the budget was. Not a single member of this Senate voted for it, including the Democrats. It is a budget that didn’t lead with the debt limit; in fact, it increased the debt. That’s how absurd the budget was.

Where is the President plan? We haven’t seen it. We haven’t seen it.  Here‘s the President’s plan: a blank sheet of paper. He doesn’t have a plan. He hasn’t offered a plan. Again, if this were a Republican president, I would say the same thing.

I do not understand how an issue of this magnitude, of generational importance, the President of the United States has not offered a plan. If someone has seen the president’s plan, please send it to me because no one else has seen it. It does not exist.

So this has been the plan all along, by the way. The plan all along was not to take a position, to let the days count down until we got to this point with 72 hours to go and then force a vote on something that they wanted. I believe that that has been the plan the entire time. And you can see it carrying itself out.

You want to know why people all across America get grossed out about politics? It’s by watching this kind of stuff happen.

And instead let me tell you what we’ve seen for the last few days. First of all, for today and for much of this time I have heard all these attacks and name-calling. If we had $1 billion for every time I heard the words “tea party extremist,” we could solve this debt problem.

So all this name-calling, so I said let me read some quotes about this debt limit and I found some pretty extremist quotes.

Here’s one.

It says, “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I, therefore, intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt.” A quote from a tea party extremist, right? No. This is a quote from March 16 of 2006 from Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

I found another extremist quote. This one says, “Because this massive of accumulation of debt was predicted, because it was foreseeable, because it was unnecessary, because it was the result of willful and reckless disregard for the warnings that were given and for the fundamentals of economic management, I am voting against a debt limit increase.” Well, that must be from a tea party extremist member of the House, right? No. This is March 16, 2006, from Senator Joe Biden of Delaware.

And last but not least, here’s a quote from September 27 of 2007. It says, “I find it distasteful and disturbing to increase the debt limit yet again. Clearly we need to change course and this debt limit bill is just another reminder of that.” And that is from the distinguished Senator from Nevada, the majority leader. On that date in 2007.

And yet now these same quotes in this context, what we’re talking about raising the debt limit more than has ever been raised in one vote, is extremism? This name-calling is absurd and it sets this process back.

The other thing I hear — oh, it is not reasonable. This is a waste of time. This bill can’t pass the Senate when they talk about the House bill. So now it disqualifies the bill the fact that it can’t pass in the Senate.

Well, guess what? The Senate bill can’t pass in the Senate —  the Senate bill can’t pass in the Senate.”

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): “Will the Senator yield for a question?”

Sen. Rubio: “Yes, I’ll yield.”

Sen. John Kerry: “I thank the Senator for doing that. That’s become somewhat unusual in the Senate today. So I truly appreciate it.

I would ask the Senator, as ironic as it may be that on occasion people in the past have indeed voted against a debt limit — both Republicans and Democrats alike — is it not true that in those situations those votes did not hold the nation hostage, did not come at a moment of enormous economic fragility as we are in today, and did not run the risk of default because it was going to pass overwhelmingly every time?

Is that not true?”

Sen. Rubio: “To the Senator from Massachusetts, I would say two things.

The first is that those votes — put it to you this way. If the Senator from Illinois at the time, Senator Obama, had had his way, we’d be in the same position we are in now. Because he had voted against the debt – and I recognize the President has now said that the debt limit is — he made a mistake and he wouldn’t have said that were he here today.

My point, I would say to the Senator from Massachusetts, is that rhetoric two years ago was not considered extremist language and now that rhetoric, which by the way I have not found. I think it is a myth. There may be a handful of people in the building both in the House and Senate perhaps that believe that the nation doesn’t have to raise the debt limit. But by and large everyone recognizes that something must be done about the debt limit.

What we have also said – I speak for myself. Let me not speak for any other member of this chamber or the next.

What I have also said is that it would be a terrible mistake to lose this opportunity to do something meaningful about the debt. And that the debt limit gives us an opportunity to do something meaningful about the debt, because the crisis that America faces is not one that I have defined.

But one that has been defined by the rating houses and rating agencies who have said if you do not get your spending in order, we don’t care whether you raise your debt limit or not, we will downgrade you.

And what that means for every American is an increase in their interest payments.”

Sen. John Kerry: “Will the Senator further yield for a question?”

Sen. Rubio: “Yes.”

Sen. Kerry: “Mr. President I appreciate what the Senator is saying. I would just say first of all that everybody understands the danger of the rating agencies right now.

The problem is, we got to reach across the aisle and negotiate. We’ve got to come to agreement. Right now there’s not a lot of negotiating going on.

I would ask the Senator, if he doesn’t agree that there is an enormous difference between — the Senator a moment ago said if he had gotten his way. But the whole point is, everybody knew he wasn’t about to get his way. That was a truly symbolic vote.

Today, however, is it not true we are on the brink of a default and the absence of negotiation or the absence of a settlement presents us with a far more serious consequence to the unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling today?”

Sen. Rubio: “To the Senator from Massachusetts I would say it‘s impossible to negotiate with someone who doesn’t offer a plan. How do you negotiate with someone who will not offer a plan and will not put it on the table?

But the finger pointing of who has a plan and who doesn’t have a plan is relevant, but it’s not the central issue here.

I would also say that in March of this year, March 30 to be exact of this year, I wrote an op-ed piece that ran in The Wall Street Journal and it outlined the things I was looking for to be a part of this debate. And I was told on March of this year that we didn’t have enough time to do all those things. Although later on we found out perhaps we did, this grand bargain and I am prepared, as I stand here today, if there is a meeting going on right after this, I’d love to be a part of it.

I am prepared to discuss the things that I believe we need to do not just to raise the debt limit. Raising the debt limit is the easiest thing. That’s one vote away. The hard thing is to show the world we are serious about putting our spending in order so we can show people we’ll able to pay our bills down the road.

And that is a combination of things that I have outlined very clearly, not just on March of this year in The Wall Street Journal, but in repeated speeches on this floor.

And those are the things, we need to do two things.

Number one is we need to grow our economy because while the debt is the biggest issue in Washington, jobs are the biggest issue facing America. And if we could get more people back to work, we would have more people paying taxes, and if we had more people paying taxes, we’d have more revenue for government.

And so that is the first thing we need to do, is figure out how to create jobs in America and I think there is bipartisan agreement on things we can do to do that.

The President himself mentioned regulatory reform as a necessity in the State of the Union. Let’s do it.

We’ve all talked about tax reform. Flattening and simplifying our tax code. And if there are things in that tax code that do not belong there because they are the product of good lobbying instead of good policy, then let’s go after those things. We’ve talked about that. Let’s talk about that.

I think we all agree that there has to be some changes in discretionary spending, but we also agree that doesn’t solve the problem. That’s a small piece of our overall budget. That we have to save Medicare because it goes bankrupt if we leave it the way it is. That we have to save Medicaid because it goes bankrupt if we leave it the way it is.

And I can tell you that history will back up what I’m about to say and that is that there is no government run by conservatives, Republicans, put whoever you want there, if you give government the opportunity to spend more money than it has, it will do it. It will do it every time.

That‘s why I believe there are at least 20 members of the Senate in the other party who have supported some version of the balanced budget amendment and yet it’s something we cannot even get a vote on much less discuss in the Senate.

So I believe there can be compromise on those outlines but here’s the last thing I would say.

I believe my time is about to expire so let me close with this.

Compromise is fantastic.

I would love nothing more than to leave this building tomorrow night having said the republic still works. I was able to stand shoulder to shoulder with people from states far from mine with views different from mine but who love their country so much that we were able to come together and save it when it faced this catastrophe.

I would love nothing more than compromise. But I would say to you that compromise that’s not a solution is a waste of time.

If my house was on fire, I can‘t compromise about which part of the house I’m going to save. You save the whole house or it will all burn down.

We either save this country or we do not.

And to save it, we must seek solutions.”

LINK

=================

=================

========

Did President Manufacture Debt Crisis?

========================

===============

==========

WHO is actually holding up the debt talks and votes?

LINK

**Advertisement plays first**

====================

Harry Reid is filibustering himself?

Saturday night Kabuki bickerfest; Update: Sunday Senate Vote Pushed Back to 1pm; Backroom deal details emerge

By Michelle Malkin
July 30, 2011

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just summoned all Senators and took to the floor to lament a GOP filibuster of his bill. Earlier today, the House rejected his plan. He repeated filibuster 100 times and even spelled it out — f-i-l-i-b-u-s-t-er.

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell asked why Reid wouldn’t allow a cloture vote on the Reid proposal at 6:30pm Eastern.

Reid let out a thin laugh and meekly said: “I object.”

Laughter, much deserved, broke out on the Senate floor.

McConnell noted that he interrupted a meeting with VP Joe Biden to answer Reid’s summons.

Buzz on the rest of Capitol Hill says everyone else but Reid (busy pouting about everyone else’s press conferences) is close to a deal.

Ed Morrissey’s prediction:

My prediction is that we will see a deal structured in two installments of the debt-ceiling hike using the McConnell mechanism, which combined will hit the amount Reid wanted, and with the cuts and assumptions built into the Boehner proposal (with possibly a few changes, which should be checked), with a commitment for a balanced-budget amendment vote in the Senate included. A package like that could get a grudging majority in both chambers, and if it did, Obama would have little choice but to sign it. I suspect we’ll see an announcement before midnight tonight on something along those lines — or on a short-term debt-ceiling hike of no more than $100 billion to give them a little more time to get there.

MORE here……

======================

Related link:

Obstructionist Politics: Denying a Vote

 

========================

‘Significant Progress’ in Debt Talks

GOP leaders and WH make ‘significant progress’ on deal to avoid government default that would raise the nation’s debt limit by about $2.4 trillion and require Congress to vote on a balanced budget amendment.

=========================

Pinocchio + Obama = Obamanocchio. **A MUST Read** Is there REALLY a Default Crisis?

==========================

‘Obamanocchio’

By Frank Salvato

July 30, 2011

A good friend of mine, David Jeffers of The Aletheia Group, sent out a message last night almost directly after President Obama finished his speech to the American public regarding the debt ceiling. His message was titled “Obamaocchio,” and, in light of what Mr. Obama and his Administration have been telling bankers behind closed doors about this issue, appropriate.

Even as President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner take to the airwaves (as it were) to trumpet that the economic sky will fall if Congress does not reach a deal to raise the debt ceiling; to give the federal government the ability to amass more foreign debt, both Mr. Obama and Mr. Geithner – and their dispatches – have been reassuring the financial sector that they have no intention of allowing the United States government to “default” on its debt, regardless of whether Congress raises the debt ceiling or not.

A senior banking official admitted to receiving “guidance” from the Obama Administration insisting that “default is off the table.” This should be the catalyst for a great deal of anger; anger emanating from those who receive Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid payments, not to mention anyone whose investments have been held in limbo for all the uncertainty surrounding the debt ceiling issue.

FOX Business reports:

“In a series of phone calls, administration officials have told bankers that the administration will not allow a default to happen even if the debt cap isn’t raised by the August 2 date Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says the government will run out of money to pay all its bills, including obligations to bond holders…

“A senior banking official told FOX Business that administration officials have provided guidance to them that even though a default is off the table, a downgrade ‘is a real possibility for no other reason than S&P and Moody’s have to cover (themselves) since they’ve been speaking out on the debt cap so much.

“This guidance is a big reason why Wall Street has largely dismissed the possibility of default, and though the markets have been jittery amid the talk of default, they haven’t imploded as would be the case, many economists fear, if the nation missed a payment on its debt.”

(As an aside, every American should be questioning the validity of S&P and Moody’s rating declarations, if only for the undisputable fact that they were complicit in the mortgage meltdown that triggered the economic crisis in that they gave AAA ratings to sub-prime mortgage bundlers who imploded when the “ACORN mortgage payments” came due. But I digress…)

This lends credence to each and every member of Congress and every informed citizen who has pointed out the indisputable fact that there is no possible way the United States can “default” on its debt interest payments, not to mention Social Security, Medicare, Medicare and Veteran’s Affairs payments due, as well as federal employee paychecks, including military. Those who have demonized the truth-tellers owe them a heartfelt apology.

Further, even as the TEA Party contingent among our elected officials takes on the full brunt of the Obama Machine’s demagoguery, they are readying a bill – The Full Faith & Credit Act – to the House floor. This bill would direct the president to prioritize federal payments to the nation’s creditors, Social Security recipients and soldiers serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. They do this as the Progressive Left attacks them for…oh, the gall of it all…demanding that the federal government spend within its means.

So, we have President Obama, using one of his Janus faces to take to the public airwaves to declare that should Congress not act in providing for an increase in the federal government’s ability to accrue debt, Social Security checks “may not be sent out,” and that the United States federal government would be harmed – irreparably. While out of his other Janus face he tells potential campaign contributors (read: Obama Doing Well with Wall Street Donors) not to worry about a US government default because he won’t allow it to happen.

These actions serve as proof positive that Mr. Obama, David Plouffe, Valerie Jarret and the rest of the Hyde Park, Chicago, Progressive Leftist contingent are simply – at their core beings – slimy Chicago politicians employing the “say anything to win” strategy of instituting crisis while employing fear-tactics that target our nation’s seniors and the most vulnerable among us. It is despicable and our nation deserves better.

***By Frank Salvato****

LINK

***Emphasis added **

================================

============================

It’s All about THEM: Shame! AFSCME Protestors Target Company that Hires the Developmentally Disabled

=====================

===============

=========

From Big Government:

By Brett Healy 

July 30, 2011

First, opponents of Governor Scott Walker’s budget reforms protested a ceremony honoring Special Olympics athletes. The negative publicity that stunt got them did nothing to give them pause. Now, AFSCME and other liberal protesters decided to picket a business that makes a point of hiring people with special needs, on Thursday.  It was to be a day celebrating their success. But to Big Labor, it always has to be about Big Labor.

For a group that yells “Shame!” all the time, it is clear that they have none.

LINK

==================================

For Reid, Durbin, and Obama, a (very) Partisan Record on Debt Ceiling

========================

From the Washington Examiner:

By Byron York 

July 30, 2011

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has frequently accused Republicans of playing partisan politics in the debt ceiling crisis. “The moment for partisan games is long since passed,” Reid said on July 21.  “It is time for patriots on both sides of the aisle to join hands and actually govern.”  On July 26, Reid released a statement headlined REPUBLICANS PUT POLITICS AHEAD OF THE ECONOMY.  And on July 24, Reid cast himself as a bipartisan compromiser, trying to talk sense into his partisan adversaries.  “We hope Speaker Boehner will abandon his ‘my way or the highway’ approach,” Reid said, “and join us in forging a bipartisan compromise.”

A look at Reid’s record, however, shows that in the last decade his own voting on the issue of the debt ceiling is not only partisan but perfectly partisan. According to “The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases,” a January 2010 report by the Congressional Research Service, the Senate has passed ten increases to the debt limit since 2000.  Reid never voted to increase the debt ceiling when Republicans were in control of the Senate, and he always voted to increase the debt ceiling when Democrats were in control.

Other Democrats have also accused Republicans of partisanship in the debt fight. “It’s time for bipartisan leadership, not partisan gamesmanship,” said the number-two Democrat in the Senate, Richard Durbin, after Republicans pulled out of budget talks with President Obama.  And Obama himself described the debt debate as a “partisan three-ring circus” — leaving no doubt that it is Republicans who are practicing partisanship.

At look at Durbin’s record shows that he, too, has voted along absolutely partisan lines.  In the last decade, Durbin never voted to increase the debt ceiling when Republicans were in control and always voted to increase the debt ceiling when Democrats were in control.  As for Obama, there were four votes to raise the debt ceiling when he was in the Senate.  He missed two of them, voted no once when Republicans were in charge, and voted yes once when Democrats were in charge.

Here are the ten votes to raise the debt ceiling since 2000, according to the Congressional Research Service report. Some were standalone measures, and others were included in larger legislation:

** On June 11, 2002, with the Senate in Democratic hands due to the defection of Republican-turned-Democratic Sen. Jim Jeffords, the Senate passed a debt limit increase to bring the total national debt to $6.400 trillion.  Reid and Durbin voted yes.

** On May 23, 2003, with the Senate in Republican hands after the November 2002 mid-term elections, the Senate passed a debt limit increase to bring the total debt to $7.384 trillion.  Reid and Durbin voted no.

** On November 17, 2004, the Senate passed a debt limit increase to bring the total debt to $8.184 trillion.  Reid voted present.  Durbin voted no.  (In remarks on the Senate floor, Reid claimed that he would have liked to vote yes on increasing the limit, but that he had agreed to “live pair” his vote with then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was absent but intended to vote no.  Reid explained the two had made a deal to cancel out each other’s votes. “I, therefore, withhold my vote,” he said of the maneuver, which allowed him to say he would vote yes without actually voting yes.)

** On March 16, 2006, the Senate passed a debt limit increase to bring the total debt to $8.965 trillion.  Reid voted no, as did Durbin and Obama, then in his second year in the Senate.

** On September 27, 2007, with the Senate back in Democratic hands after the 2006 mid-term elections, the Senate passed a debt limit increase to bring the national debt to $9.815 trillion.  Reid and Durbin voted yes.  Obama, running for president, did not vote.

** On July 26, 2008, the Senate passed a debt limit increase included in the Housing and Recovery Act of 2008 to bring the national debt to $10.615 trillion.  Reid and Durbin voted yes.  Obama did not vote.

** On October 1, 2008, the Senate passed a debt limit increase included in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to bring the national debt to $11.315 trillion.  Reid, Durbin, and Obama voted yes.

** On February 13, 2009, the Senate passed a debt limit increase included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known as the stimulus bill, which increased the national debt to $12.104 trillion.  Reid and Durbin voted yes.

** On December 24, 2009, the Senate passed a debt limit increase to bring the total debt to $12.394 trillion.  Reid and Durbin voted yes.

** On January 28, 2010, the Senate passed a debt limit increase to bring the national debt to $14.294 trillion.  Reid and Durbin voted yes.

The pattern of Reid’s and Durbin’s voting is difficult to miss:  If Republicans control the Senate, they vote against raising the debt ceiling.  If Democrats control the Senate, they vote in favor of raising the debt ceiling.

It is a fact of life on Capitol Hill that the party in control of Congress bears the responsibility of raising the debt ceiling.  That can become a difficult task when control of the House and Senate is split between Republicans and Democrats, as it is now.  One might think it would make leaders who have voted along strictly partisan lines think twice before denouncing the other party as partisan.  But it has not prevented Reid, Durbin, and Obama from doing just that.

LINK

****Written by Byron York****

**emboldened dates added**

=========================

===================

Rebuttal to the Wasteland of Democrat Spin. Republicans have Compromised: Marxist/Socialist Democrat Party and Obama Have Not

======================

From the Democrats/Marxists/Communists:

Van Jones:  GOP ‘FACTION’ PUTS ‘GUN TO THE HEAD OF 310 MILLION PEOPLE’

From Communist Party USA:

Holding Americans hostage

 

White House Press Secretary:  

CARNEY ACCUSES REPUBLICANS OF TRYING TO ‘BLOW UP’ ECONOMY

======================

JULY 29, 2011 8:30 PM

SENATE VOTES TO TABLE HOUSE DEBT BILL WITHOUT EVEN DEBATING ON ITS MERITS

Excerpt:

Friday night the Senate voted to table House Speaker Boehner’s debt bill 59 to 41.

This does not mean that the bill has died, but has rather been put aside to be used by Majority Leader Harry Reid as the underlying vehicle from which he will draft a counter-plan. The Reid plan will then be submitted back to the House.

==========================

=====================

=============

NOW THE REBUTTAL:

Republicans Have Compromised; Obama Has Not

By Frank Salvato

July 29, 2011

The Obama Administration, Congressional Progressives and Democrats, and the mainstream media have done a fantastic job of controlling the narrative in the debt ceiling/budget debate. They have hammered home, in an almost Goebbels-esque manner, the false notion that Republicans have not “compromised on their partisan ideals”; that the GOP is, to use their talking point, “intransigent.” This is nothing short of exactly the opposite from the truth.

The fact of the matter is that House Speaker John Boehner, and a majority of the House and Senate Republican contingents, have compromised, and have done so on a major issue: raising the debt ceiling.

Looking back on the 2010 Mid-Term Election, those concerned about the fiscal irresponsibility executed by our elected class stated loud and clear, in the only poll that matters – the poll at the ballot box, that we wanted the federal government to employ fiscal restraint. In many cases, those whose names were on the ballot, indicated that they finally – finally – got the message. Even Harry Reid (D-NV), ran on a platform that included support for a balanced budget amendment. They said time and time again, at rallies and fundraisers that they understood that the American people were demanding dramatically reduced spending, an honest effort to reduce debt and an abdication of status quo partisan politics, at least until the country’s fiscal health was on the mend.

Fast-Forward to today.

The elected class on the Left side of the aisle, but for a very few, have once again exhibited the status quo Janus face of political skullduggery. They have abandoned the stance of fiscal responsibility only to embrace their neo-traditional role of Progressive partisan. They feign an advocacy for reducing expenditures when in fact they are actually advancing increased expenditures in a reduced manner from what they would prefer. Over a dozen Democrats who actually ran on a platform supporting a balanced budget amendment – including Senate Majority Leader Reid – abandoned their promises to their constituents in voting down ‘Cut, Cap and Balance,’ a bill Mr. Reid called, “the stupidest constitutional amendment I’ve ever seen.”

Conversely – and most importantly as we move forward – Republicans who ran on fiscal responsibility, who insisted that they heard the American voter in the 2010 election, have taken their seats at the negotiating table in good faith, in contrast to their counterparts. In the spirit of ingenuous compromise, Republicans acquiesced to raising the debt ceiling, an action their constituents firmly stated, via the ballot box, they did not want them to do; Republicans compromised on their principles by entertaining the notion of raising the debt ceiling. What they asked for in return – what they wanted in compromise from Democrats, Progressives and Mr. Obama – was a commitment to honor the fiscal responsibility mandated by the American people: reduced spending with caps, entitlement reforms and a mechanism to make sure the federal government, both of the present and in the future, follows through on these promises: a balanced budget amendment that could be debated at the State level.

As we stand at the precipice of a historical moment in time, we have one party – the Republican Party – that has advanced no less than four debt ceiling/budget reduction plans and offered a true compromise in allowing for a raise in the federal debt limit, and another party – the Progressive Democrat Party and Barack Obama – who have proven unconditional in their insistence of reserving the right to spend and amass debt; who execute an audacity that brands compromising Republicans as “intransigent” even as they execute that very short-coming.

When the facts are examined, it is, in fact, Democrats, Progressives and, especially, President Obama, who have proved to be stubbornly intransigent, not Republicans. Republicans compromised on raising the debt ceiling. Democrats and Mr. Obama have compromised on nothing.

***Written by Frank Salvato***

LINK

===========================

Note:  Democrats have had CONTROL over the House, the Senate and the Presidency from 2006 until January 2011.  NO BUDGET in over 800+ days……Democrats were balking for MONTHS on budget talks prior to the November 2010 elections.

So WHY now are the Dems and Obama fingerpointing at the Republicans/Conservatives as holding the American economy hostage?

Are Americans as stupid as the Dems and Obama think?

Obama’s Regulatory CZAR: Cass Sunstein

===========================

=================

Speaker Boehner “Put Something On The Table!”

============

==========================

“The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.”

 -Samuel Adams”

============================

We all have rights, however, we do not have the right to be totally equal. Our Constitution gives us unalienable rights, but not the guarantee of outcomes.

In other words: Two people are each given an orange; one will peel it and eat it leaving the rind and seeds on the ground. The other may choose to take that orange, remove the seeds, grind it up including the rind, and combine it with cranberries to make cranberry-orange relish. This same person will then plant the seeds to make an entire orange tree. So each person is given the independence to choose what to do with their orange.

Individualism vs. Government control

Obama’s Bud Jeffrey Immelt of GE moving Jobs to CHINA?

=======================

From Red State:

July 29, 2011

Posted by TobyToons (Profile)

For some background information, see this CNN Blog story about GE moving jobs to China while GE’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, is one of President Obama’s advisers on U.S. job creation.

LINK

=======================

Related Link:

Conflict of Interest? The GE/Obama Connection. ACORN Money Trail

From MAY 16, 2009

Excerpt:

It is absolutely amazing how MUTED all the journalists and other MSM’s are about this!

No contract negotiations?……WHY would GE put millions into this:

http://www.healthymagination.com/?cid=yahoohealthymagination

GE Healthcare: “Healthymagination”

 Read:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124173070387297801.html

 *********

GE Green Energy: “Ecomagination”…….another catalyst…..Carbon tax comes to mind…..

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=General_Electric’s_Ecomagination_Campaign

********

GE Capital gets money from FDIC: What?……. American taxpayers on the hook for $224 BILLION dollars to GE just to back up their credit card mess, etc.

http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/11/ge-ge-gets-fdic-debt-guarantee

 ==========================

#1.  Has Obama already given GE the healthcare contract?  Notice how some of the words in the “introduction” match some of what we have already heard Obama state about healthcare.

GE has already spent millions and have already made commercials (thousands of them) to be played on NBC and MSNBC……

#2.  Did Obama’s “Green Team” in the White House already give the Energy contract to GE?

#3.  Did Obama, through the White House insure GE received $224 billion dollars through FDIC?

#4.  Obama has ties to ACORN and the SEIU……will Obama be included in an investigation of where his campaign funds came from? Will Obama be tied to the money received by Citizens Consulting, Inc.?

GE/Immelt owns NBC/MSNBC; the “tingle up the leg” journalists talking about Obama…..”The One”…..


=========================

Obama the “Job Creator”……..FOR WHOM?

Public sector Unions?

His Politburo wing of CZARS?

For his “Bud” Jeffrey Immelt at GE?

For China?

Mr. President?

====================

Unemployment now 9.2%.  Only 18,000 jobs created last week…….

========================

Obama’s Exclusive George Soros Waivers

========================

From National Review:

By Michelle Malkin

July 29, 2011

‘Millionaires and billionaires,” President Obama says derisively, must make more “sacrifices” and live by the same rules the rest of America lives by. But there are seven little words that will never appear on the White House teleprompter: “And that means you, too, George Soros.”

For all his (and his wife’s) bashing of greedy Wall Street hedge-fund managers, Obama has shown nothing but love to the world’s most famous hedge-fund mogul. The feeling is mutual and deep(-pocketed).

Soros and his family shelled out $250,000 for Obama’s inauguration, $60,000 in direct campaign contributions, and untold millions more to liberal activist groups pushing the White House agenda. While the class-warrior-in-chief assails conniving financiers who exploit loopholes and corporate titans who imperil the planet, he lets the Soros infractions of his attack-the-rich rules slide like butter on a hot plate.

This week, for example, Soros announced he was “quitting” the hedge-fund industry. The headlines emphasized his decision to return about $750 million to outside investors (a drop in his $30 billion bucket of personal wealth). He’s reconstituting the business that landed him on Forbes magazine’s “wealthiest people” list as a “family” interest. But the move has “self-serving politics” written all over it.

Over the past year, Soros provided coveted support for Obama and the Democrats’ Byzantine financial “reforms” under the sweeping Dodd-Frank law. He preached to financial publications around the world about the need for increased regulatory controls over his industry. And in November 2008, while paying obligatory lip service to concerns about going too far, he submitted a statement to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that recommended: “The entire regulatory framework needs to be reconsidered, and hedge funds need to be regulated within that framework.”

Frameworks for thee, but not for he, however.

Under Title IV of Dodd-Frank, hedge funds were required to abide by new registration and reporting requirements in an attempt to better police systemic risk (not that the feckless Securities and Exchange Commission has ever been able to fulfill that mission). To evade the regulations, Soros and other firms have used a recently passed rule allowing so-called family offices to shield themselves from both registration and disclosure rules that would have subjected Soros Inc. to a new “Financial  Stability Oversight Council.”

Somehow, amid celebrations of the legislation’s one-year anniversary last week, there was nary a peep about the myriad loopholes and de facto waivers being granted to Obama’s powerful benefactors whose names start with “S” and end in “oros.”

GOP senator Richard Shelby of Alabama called out Soros for his hypocrisy, telling Reuters this week: “It appears that Mr. Soros talked up financial reform only to sell it short. Don’t be surprised to see his fellow Wall Street financiers follow suit.”

This comes on top of the Obama administration’s $2 billion offering in 2009 to Brazilian state-owned offshore-oil-drilling company Petrobras — in which Soros and his management company own an $811 million stake.

Continue reading here……..

**Emphasis added**

======================

Related Links:l  Read by clicking on blue letters below

FOX HOST VARNEY ON SOROS: ‘I DO NOT LIKE BILLIONAIRE SOCIALISTS WHO HATE AMERICA AND TRY TO MAKE MONEY OUT OF OUR RUIN’

*****************

Progressive billionaire/Spooky Dude George Soros is reportedly getting out the business because he and his family are fed up with excessive government regulation.

How’s that for reaping what you sow?

*******************************

Yep, America…….KEEP BACKING OBAMA and his minions.

How’s that “HOPE” and “CHANGE” working out for you?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 147 other followers