Fact Check: Obama is the biggest Government Spender

You ever realize that when someone decides to put the words “Fact Check” in front of something while retorting a claim made by a politician that 90% of the time the reader simply assumes it is true? I use to be guilty of this myself years ago. However, with maturity and an education I discovered that words were nothing, even statistics used to “fact check” are bias and often times misleading. I’ve seen so many articles posted about Obama not being a huge government spender, in fact one claim is that he is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower. Well, here is your fact check from the CBO and Obama’s own Budget proposal.

Okay, here we go- People are trying to blame the runaway debt on the budget proposed and approved in 2008. It is their poor attempt at protecting Obama. It’s not his fault the debt is like this, it’s Bush’s fault. Sure, the previous administration proposes a budget, however, what congress approves is often times very different. However, the Fiscal Year 2009

President Obama: Spender in Chief

budget proposed by Bush only added a 3% spending increase from the fiscal year before. To make this clear FY 2009 ran from October 1, 2008 until September 30, 2009. Obama’s term began the 20th of January, 2009. However, does anyone care to recall who controlled Congress in 2008? That’s right, the Democratic majority. The budget that Pelosi, then Senator Obama, and other Congressional Democrats approved added an additional 14.9% spending increase, bringing to total to 17.9% increased spending for fiscal year 2009.

Let’s take a trip down memory lane shall we? In FY 1981 Reagan entered the White House. Reagan was red tapped for one of his first acts as President, which was to drastically cut the budget he was provided by the Carter Administration/Congressional Democrats. Reagan along with a bi-partisan congress pushed through BILLIONS in budget cuts for FY ’81 resulting in a 5% decrease in that FY budget. President Obama had every chance to do the very same thing. In fact, he had an even better opportunity to do so with a completely Democratic controlled Congress. So why didn’t he? Even with incredible runaway inflation, which masks the true glory of Reagan’s continued budget cuts, Reagan managed to trim Federal spending relative to GDP from 23.5% to 21.2%. This was translated into a decrease in the magnitude of government relative to the economy of 10%. An incredible accomplishment.

Obama’s first plan? The stimulus. An increase in federal spending of nearly 1Trillion dollars, which was not only the most expensive piece of legislation up until that point in America’s history, it also failed. The latest non-partisan CBO report is warning of an additional 2 million (+) jobs lost, >9% unemployment and an almost certain double dip recession beginning in 2013. Is this what Obama wants us to look “Forward” to? How did taking a trillion dollars out of our economy, borrowed at interest, owed back by the taxpayers, to stimulate the economy make any sense?

This wasn’t enough for Obama and the Democratic Congress though. They then passed a $410 Billion dollar Supplemental Spending bill for FY 2009 instead of making the cuts that Reagan took a hit for over 3 decades ago. Then in 2009 came a $40 Billion dollar expansion to SCHIP entitlement spending. That’s just the beginning folks… hold your horses. Then in 2010 came Obamacare. The largest unconstitutional government takeover of the private sector in the history of the United States, which was also the largest spending bill in the history of the world. The non partisan CBO report says it will cost over 1.6 Trillion dollars in the first 10 years, followed by an unknown price tag of trillions more every year it is law. Obama’s four years were reported in Obama’s own 2013 budget as $1.413 trillion for 2009, $1.293 trillion for 2010, $1.3 trillion for 2011, and $1.327 trillion for 2012, four years in a row of deficits of $1.3 trillion or more, the highest in world history. His own party even voted no on his latest budget proposal. In fact, not one single Democrat voted to support the President’s proposal. So how does blaming Republicans even work for the President? In the history of the world there has never been a proposed budget exceeding $1 Trillion dollars. In fact, the highest ever before was $458 billion in 2008, which is less than 1/2 a Trillion. That is four years of record setting deficit budgets. See what happens when you don’t actually have a budget and you just use a blank check? In stark contrast the federal deficit for the last budget adopted by a Republican controlled Congress was $161 billion for fiscal year 2007. Compare that to a $1.327 Trillion dollar deficit proposed by Obama.  During the 4 years of Obama’s power-grip on the nation’s debt he has racked up more debt than George Washington-George W. Bush. Impressive accomplishment there Mr. Obama.

Under budget policies supported by President Obama, federal spending would be projected to soar, using the proposed rate, to 30% of GDP by 2027, 40% by 2040, 50% by 2060, and 80% by 2080.  Obama’s 2013 budget proposes to spend $47 trillion over the next 10 years, the most in world history by far, increasing federal spending by $1.5 trillion above the current CBO baseline.  The Public debt held by you an I for 2011was $10.1 Trillion dollars. However, that’s not enough for the President. Under what Obama is proposing, he thinks that should go up to $20 Trillion dollars in the next 9 years.

Folks, let’s be real. The Liberals can spin the numbers how ever they like, but the man’s own budget tells a very different story from what they would have you and I believe. The Debt clock doesn’t lie people.

Obamacare: Why It’s Still Unconstitutional

Take it from a guy who studies medicine- we pay attention to all things related to health, and despite the SCOTUS ruling, Obamacare is still unconstitutional. In less than 600 words here’s why: Let’s start with the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This means that the Federal Government may enforce no bill or law that holds sovereignty over state or individual right. HR 3590 requires that all citizens purchase health coverage under threat of Federal prosecution. The most resently
evolved rhetoric from proponents of HR 3590 argue that this is not a mandate, it is a tax, which congress has the power to do. However, the full text of the PPAACA never calls the mandate a tax. In fact, individual taxation in reference to exchange for health insurance is never once mentioned in the bill. Furthermore, A1 S7 of the United States Constitution  states that all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives. The PPAACA originated in the Senate. However, a bill called the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 did originate in the HR. This 6 page bill was drafted to provide incentives to US military home purchasers. The Senate took the bill, completely erased it cover to cover, changed the name to The Patient Protection and Affordable

“When our rights are left to the hands of vague legislative language, no good can be found as result. For liberty and freedom are words of absolute, and ambiguity must find no refuge here.” -Michael Lotfi

Care Act and  stuffed it full of 906 pages worth of vague legislative language that no one read. Yet, knowing all of this as fact, SCOTUS ruled the PPAACA a tax to say that the mandate was constitutional. Well, there’s only one problem with that and it is called The Anti-Injunction Act of 1876. The AIA states that no suit may be brought against the assessment or collection of any tax before that tax is actually collected. The “tax” (per the SCOTUS ruling) collection to fund the PPAACA will not go into affect until 2014. This meaning that the SCOTUS ruling is in direct violation of the Anti Injunction Act, therefore essentially making the ruling invalid. Even though Budget Director Peter Orszag, Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Obama and Congressional Democrats all denied that the PPAACA was a tax while trying to pass the legislation the ruling currently stands as a tax, and none of the aforementioned are arguing that. As the ruling on  the PPAACA currently stands- it is one of the most extensive tax increases on the American people in history. It may not be the largest tax increase in history as a percentage of income, however, its scope in relation to new taxation is quite monumental in regards to previous tax increases in the history of the country. These newly de facto added taxes include the payroll medicare tax increase, increased tax rate on investment income, a new Flexible Spending Account tax-free cap of $2,500, which never before had a cap for taxation to apply, an increase tax on those who carry high medical bill balances by decreasing the deduction rate, and an increased tax on medical manufacturers, which will increase the price of every single piece of medical equipment created resulting in higher costs for the patient. Those are only a few in a list over over 20 new taxes, all of which will be enforced on the American people without Constitutional sovereignty. So, although the PPAACA has some great benefits such as those concerning pre-existing conditions and raising the age for children to have coverage under their parent’s insurance, when leaving our liberty to the hands of vague legislative language no paramount good can be found as result. The United States Constitution guarantees the absolutes of liberty and freedom to the American citizen and ambiguous language, such as that used in the PPAACA,  must find no refuge here.

The New Two Party America

As modern Americans we are told that here in the US our government runs mostly on a two party system. You are either Republican, or you are a Democrat. Some states don’t even give you another option. Those are your choices. However, anyone who takes the time to read a voting record will see that this is one of the greatest fallacies our nation currently faces. For example, in my home state of TN one of our US Senators, Bob Corker (R) has a voting record that is consistent with President Obama’s record 61% of the time. Obama being one of the most radical left wing democrats our nation has ever faced, is it not odd that a man has the audacity to carry an (R) behind his name on the ballot with a record that is 61% radically to the left? So far left that it is in-fact not Democrat vs. Republican, but big government against the people’s constitutional rights and liberty- nothing short of Communism if you ask me. What kind of (R) refuses to audit the Federal Reserve when over 16 trillion dollars in transactions (the largest monetary transaction in the history of the world) have occurred in less than 4 years? Are (R) not suppose to be fiscal conservatives? The kind who gets millions of dollars in funding from those big bankers. What kind of (R) is in business with the United Nations to take away America’s 2nd Amendment rights? The kind the receives incentives from powerful UN players. We already know that the (D) left has mostly morphed into something unrecognizable in American politics, but that was another story- Corker’s story is not at all unique to the GOP.

The truth is that the idea of Republicans vs Democrats is really a fast fading ideology of American politics. The new two party system in America is more like Liberty vs. Establishment. I hate to be one who looks like a screaming idiot on a side corner calling for Anarchy. That’s what the establishment likes to paint people like me as. The truth is, I believe in government. It has its place. Our founding fathers believed in this and therefore on principle alone it has validity. Government is to serve its people, not the other way around.

Thomas Jefferson famously said, “When people fear their government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

America: One Republic Under Liberty

Party loyalty has now dictated the path of liberty in America. Yet, it is not a path that America recognizes. Republicans voting for huge expansions of government, calling Democrats heretics for doing the very same thing- it makes no sense. If America is to be saved, it is not going to be saved by establishment politicians with agendas focused not on the people, but their own. The ones who care about America are the ones the establishment and liberal media want to silence the most. They will paint us crazy, delusional, and inexperienced. However, we run on the very principles that made this country the global power it was until recently. How is that so crazy or delusional? Don’t be fooled by the two party system that convinces you that you are making a different choice. You need only look at who funds the 2012 Presidential Campaign. Number one contributor to Obama’s Campaign: Goldman Sachs. Number one contributor to Romney’s Campaign: Goldman SachsSo it seems the election was over before it even began. Choose real conservative values over the fallacy of neoconservatism. Choose liberty America.

Bipartisanship Killed The GOP

Somewhere along the timeline of America’s two party system socialism found its stronghold. That stronghold was to be found in the Democratic party, which is a crying shame when you review the ideals of Jacksonian Democracy. It is my firm belief that Jackson is rolling over in his grave at the Hermitage here in my home state of Tennessee.

Ronald Wilson Reagan famously said, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. They left me.” Reagan would go on to become the most famous Republican and politician of our time. He is said to have set the ideals of economic conservatism. Since the time of Reagan, the left has become so extremely left that they very well may be able to outrun the speed of a photon to denounce anyone who is not an idealist of their current agenda. The Democratic party isn’t even left anymore- it’s just down right Marxist. I had a conversation with a friend the other day about Obama’s name change from Barry to Obama. This man, a self-proclaimed political big-wig immediately went on the defense. Saying, “That’s just BS right-wing propaganda.” Even though in Obama’s book, “Dreams from my Father” he himself states his name as Barry. I then asked him what was Obama’s excuse? Bush is invalid at this point. Sure, Bush screwed some things up- I’m not denying that. However, Look at what Carter left Reagan with. Did Reagan complain about Carter, sure he did- but was Carter a scapegoat to carry out a radical reformation of the country? Absolutely not. Reagan added 16.7 million jobs to our economy and left office with an unemployment rate of 5.4%, compared to 7.5% unemployment when he took over from Carter. Now, here’s the funny thing. Obama has added 0.1 Million jobs in the almost 4 years since he’s taken office (Yes, that’s 0.1) and unemployment is at 8.3% as of today, which is a 0.1% increase from only 1.5 months ago. When Obama took office from Bush unemployment was at 7.5% and Bush added 2.4 millions jobs to the economy. Not to mention the fact that Obama signed for a multi-trillion dollar stimulus at the cost of the taxpayers. Is the Carter-Reagan transition that much different from the Bush-Obama transition in terms of unemployment and economic situation? My friend’s response— “Well Reagan was just a damn gay bashing war loving right wing idiot.” My response to him, no actually Reagan once said, “Homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles…” and that prevailing scientific opinion was that a child’s sexual orientation cannot be influenced by someone else.” In fact, Reagan was a strong force of opposition to demeaning the rights of the GLBT people.

My friend was of course left speechless. He had nothing to say because my rhetoric was fact based and his only based on an agenda with no track record in this Nation. This is where my point lays. Being bipartisan no longer means reaching across the aisle to grab on to some Jacksonian ideals and blend them with the ideals of the Republic to build a strong nation. Being bipartisan now equates to reaching across the aisles to adopt socialistic ideals and the people who support such ideals are easily left speechless because their retort is never fact based, nor has it ever produced a positive record for which one can run on- instead they must run from it.

Mitt Romney is the guy that the Republican party decided they would put up against Obama (of course only after the GOP stole many local elections from Ron Paul and denied the voters their constitutional rights). Romney— I don’t hate the man for his money, I admire him. I don’t hate the man for his capitalistic ideology, once again, I admire him. I do hate the man for claiming GOP. The man who was the godfather of Obamacare, the man who supports the indefinite detention of American Citizens without right to a trial by jury, the man who supported abortion, the man who supports TARP and Cap and Trade, the man who wants to take away your 2nd Amendment rights, the man who raised taxes multiple times, the man who increased spending, the man who supports the Federal Reserve- that’s the man I detest. Now, if you got lost in all of that and thought I started to talk about Obama, then just look up Romney’s record and you’ll see for yourself. Romney, that’s where bipartisanship got us, the bipartisan monster that the GOP has elected to represent the ideals of the Republic. Are the aforementioned stances one in line with American Republic ideologies? It’s asinine to even suggest that they are.

Will I vote for him? No. However, that’s only because I do not live in a swing state. Tennessee always goes red by a huge margin. So my vote does not count here in terms of the general election on a two party system. Who will I vote for? Gary Johnson. The man who vetoed hundreds of “bipartisan” pieces of legislature that were unconstitutional, raised taxes on the people in his state, and did not represent the mold of the Republic. If I lived in a swing state, I’d be forced to vote for Romney. Go on, send your hate mail— This isn’t because I am abandoning my libertarian roots, but because Obama is no Democrat. He’s something much more, much more insidious, much more agenda laden. You need only look at what he told Russia’s Medvedev when he thought he was off the microphone:

Sadly we don’t live in a country where we can always vote on our conscious. Sometimes our vote must be strategical. At worst, Romney is an American Democrat, which is not what the country needs, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the Socialistic countries of the world having more influence here in the states. The GOP may be dead. However, it is in a revival. That’s what this is all about, bringing the Conservative Party back to Liberty. My vote is best spent spreading the movement of Liberty, making the numbers grow and showing force with such growth in the polls. Ron Paul’s ballot count jumped in every state anywhere from 100%-700% (not counting the ones thrown out by the bipartisan monsters) higher in every state primary/caucus from 2008 to 2012. This means people are awakening to the bipartisan death of not only the GOP, but of America. Yes, Romney represents the bipartisan monster, however, dealing with the mess left behind from Romney will be much more possible than the all out destruction left behind by another four years of an Obama dictatorship.

If there is one thing I can promise you it is this. If bipartisan politics is not destroyed, it will surely destroy us all. I leave you all with the wise words of one of the World’s greatest conservatives-

“You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it.” -Margaret Thatcher

Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death

“Don’t tread on me.”  If there is a piece of American iconography that is left behind and taken for granted it’s the American motto/image of the Gadsden Flag. you would be hard pressed to find a high school student in America who could give you a proper answer of what the Gadsden Flag was or what it represents. The Gadsden Flag is named after general Christopher Gadsden, who is mostly responsible for its realization.

Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death

In many ways, this flag is the true American flag. The coiled snake is representative of the thirteen colonies and the spirit of our founding fathers. Geographically the rattlesnake populated much of the areas of the first thirteen American colonies. Franklin was the first to give the snake its rise when suggesting in the Pennsylvania Gazette that the colonies should send rattlesnakes to the British as a “thank you” for sending murderous thugs to America. As the American Revolution grew and America sought the ideals of liberty Franklin wrote of the rattlesnake with American personification, “I recollected that her eye excelled in brightness, that of any other animal, and that she has no eye-lids—She may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance.—She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage.—As if anxious to prevent all pretensions of quarreling with her, the weapons with which nature has furnished her, she conceals in the roof of her mouth, so that, to those who are unacquainted with her, she appears to be a most defenseless animal; and even when those weapons are shewn and extended for her defense, they appear weak and contemptible; but their wounds however small, are decisive and fatal:—Conscious of this, she never wounds till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of stepping on her.—Was I wrong, Sir, in thinking this a strong picture of the temper and conduct of America?” The flag would be destined to fly over the heads of the American Continental fleet in 1776. I think we have allowed the history of what happened that year to fade too rapidly. This was the year that 13 small colonies half a world away declared they would stand as an independent and liberty minded people from the greatest empire to have ever ruled the Earth. The year we declared we would not go quietly into the night, the year we declared that as a people we will seek liberty, we will not allow anyone to tread on us. Don’t get me wrong, I love my stars and stripes. However, Don’t tread on me- needs a revival. If anything, the two should fly side by side to remind us of our libertarian roots, which is something we seem to have lost.

Click on this image to purchase: Gadsen Flag #Murica Bumper Sticker $4.25

Click on this image to purchase: Gadsen Flag #Murica Bumper Sticker $4.25

Obama Attacks Ohio Military Members- “Commander and Thief”

The Obama Campaign has filed a lawsuit along with the Democratic National Committee  against the men and women who serve our great country in an attempt to secure Obama’s chances of winning the swing state. The lawsuit seeks to eliminate early voting for all service members. This latest attempt at disfranchisement of our military members can be reduced to nothing more than asinine, political garbage. However, should we really be surprised? Gore tried the same thing in 2000 to win over George Bush Jr. This class act is as transparent as scotch tape. If there was a real issue at hand here then would it not need to be changed all over the country? Ohio is not the only state that gives service members the option to vote early with an extension. Oh, what’s that you say? Ohio is a swing state? Obama has already visited the state 9 times this year, yet still can’t find time to meet with his Jobs Council for 2 hours? Ohio has a large military population? Romney is campaigning hard and is expected to do well in Ohio? 18 Electoral votes lost for Obama? Romney leads Obama 58%-34% in a Gallup poll of veterans. Huh, makes sense… I mean that sounds completely arbitrary to me, does it not you? A man who has never once served this country in any type of uniform sure does have a lot of nerve to try and pull this one off.

“Freedom Is Not Free” A Veteran and his wife at the Korean War Memorial, Washington DC 2012