The Socialist Agenda for destroying America by grinding us down and taking apart our Judeo-Christian beliefs, the Constitution and the institutions - rule of law that have provided us with the enormous prosperity that comes from Ordered Liberty.

We believe that this is a fiscally irresponsible position that would place America on the Road to Ruin. At the same time, we believe that the current debate over raising the debt limit provides a historic opportunity to focus public attention, and then public policy, on a path to a balanced budget and paying down our debt. We believe the Republican Study Committee's "Cut, Cap, Balance" plan for substantial spending cuts in FY 2012, a statutory spending cap, and the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution is the minimum necessary precondition to raising the debt limit. The ultimate goal is to get us back to a point where increases in the debt limit are no longer necessary. If you agree, take the Cut, Cap, Balance Pledge! There are versions for elected officials, federal candidates and ordinary citizens. THE PLEDGE :: I pledge to urge my Senators and Member of the House of Representatives to oppose any debt limit increase unless all three of the following conditions have been met: Cut - Substantial cuts in spending that will reduce the deficit next year and thereafter. Cap - Enforceable spending caps that will put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget. Balance - Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- but only if it includes both a spending limitation and a super-majority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing revenues and expenses.

Sign the petition to Stop the Outrageous Spending That Threatens America's Future

If this doesn't piss you off nothing will!  Dirty Spending Secrets is a compilation of our governments favorite ways to waste our money.

Bulls-eye!! Uncertainty isn't the problem.  Bad government policies are exactly what's wrong and the reason things are certain to get worse.  It's a huge mistake to hire a hardcore Marxist to fix a capitalist-constitutional problem!! By CLIFFORD S. ASNESS Many commentators blame our continuing economic woes on "uncertainty." They allege that recent and anticipated dramatic policy changes make business planning difficult, and that this is retarding growth and employment. This view is not wrong-but our main problem is not the uncertainty surrounding new policies. It is the policies. Consider two uncertain situations. In the first, our business is waiting to find out the location decision for a customer's new industrial plant, so we know where to build our new supply facility. Until this is resolved, we will not invest in building nor will we hire staff. In the second situation, we know we are in for some pain, someone is going to make our business less productive and profitable, but we do not yet know how much. Planning is marginally more difficult, but the main reason we will not grow in the second situation is that investment is less attractive regardless of the precise resolution of uncertainty.

Wow!  Blockbuster stuff.... excerpt: Barack Obama is proving to be one of the worst presidents in all of U.S. history.  Perhaps when it is all said and done he will be recognized as the absolute worst.  Not that George W. Bush was much different.  In fact, the Republican Party will not regain much credibility with the American people until it admits that George W. Bush was an absolutely horrible president.  Sadly, the truth is that we have not had a decent president in decades.  This statement is going to upset almost everyone that is still trapped inside the false left/right political paradigm in this country, but I am not here to pander to the political establishment. Barack Obama is a horrific president. So was George W. Bush. That is the truth. Not that it is our presidents that actually run our economy.  As far as the economy is concerned, the U.S. Congress deserves as much (or more) of the blame as the executive branch does. However, if you really want to point fingers at someone, then you should place the most blame on the Federal Reserve. As I have written about previously, the Federal Reserve has more power over our economy that any other single institution.... So exactly what is the Federal Reserve?  Most people would say that it is an agency of the federal government.  But that is absolutely not true.  In fact, the Federal Reserve itself has argued in court that it is not an agency of the federal government.  Rather, the Federal Reserve is a privately-owned banking cartel that has been given a perpetual monopoly over our monetary system by the U.S. Congress.  This privately-owned central bank has been destroying the value of the U.S. dollar for decades, it has run our economy into the ground and it has driven the U.S. government to the brink of bankruptcy.  The Federal Reserve operates in great secrecy, it has never been subjected to a comprehensive audit and it is not accountable to the American people.  Yet the decisions that the Federal

excerpt:  Democrats, watch out. The Republican Party and especially its Tea Party wing have just acquired a new weapon of mass destruction - and it has nothing to do with any of Congressman Wiener's rogue body parts.  If they deploy this weapon effectively in the next election cycle - a big if - then they have the biggest opportunity to move the country rightward since Ronald Reagan took the oath of office back in 1981. The Tea Party WMD stockpile is currently stored in book form:  Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon. By Gretchen Morgenson, one of America's best business journalists who is currently at The New York Times, and noted financial analyst Joshua Rosner, Reckless Endangerment gives the best available account of how the growing chaos in the mortgage and personal finance markets and the rampant bundling of dubious loans into exotically toxic securities plunged the world, and millions of American families, into the gravest financial crisis since World War Two. It is gripping reading as well, and its explanations are clear enough that readers without any background in finance will have no trouble following the plot.  The villains?  An unholy alliance between Wall Street, the Democratic establishment, community organizing groups like ACORN and La Raza, and politicians like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Henry Cisneros.  (Frank got a cushy job for a lover, Pelosi got a job and layoff protection for a son, Cisneros apparently got a license to mint money bilking Mexican-Americans of their life savings in cheesy housing developments.)

This article was sent to me marked URGENT: MUST READ.  Usually that's a hint to delete.  This time however the message was true.  Nicely written article presenting in a historical context three possible futures for the world.   And, a basic plan for anyone trying to guess which future will land on our heads.  Excellent read.  Well written too. excerpt: There is a great deal of uncertainty among investors about what the future of the U.S. economy may look like - so I decided to take a stab at what's likely to happen over the next 20 years. That's enough time for a child to grow up and mature, and it's long enough for major trends to develop and make themselves felt. I'll confine myself to areas that are, as the benighted Rumsfeld might have observed, "known unknowns." I don't want to deal with possibilities of the deus ex machina sort. So we'll rule out natural events like a super-volcano eruption, an asteroid strike, a new ice age, global warming, and the like. Although all these things absolutely will occur sometime in the future, the timing is very uncertain - at least from the perspective of one human lifespan. It's pointless dealing with geological time and astronomical probability here. And, more important, there's absolutely nothing we can do about such things. So let's limit ourselves to the possibilities presented by human action. They're plenty weird and scary, and unpredictable enough.............

Excellent study of corporate fraud, with advice on how to detect it. excerpt: By taking a closer look at high-profile individuals who have perpetrated massive corporate fraud at Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, and the like and instances of fraud identified in practice, as well as some recent research, we can identify a pattern of similar behavioral elements common to white-collar crooks and cultural elements common to their environments. Following are some key elements often associated with individuals who are more likely than others to commit fraud as well as settings in which fraud is more likely to occur than elsewhere. The presence in a company of any single element is not enough to indicate fraud. But the combination - any combination - of these elements increases the risk of fraud. Behavioral Elements Individuals who exhibit or have a combination of the following social characteristics might be more likely than others to stray from the straight and narrow. Detecting fraud is further complicated by the fact that many of these behavioral elements are the same ones that tend to make executives successful.

exerpt: Just one bad apple can have awful consequences (see Madoff, Bernie or Kozlowski, Dennis). But how to spot the bad apples when you're picking from the tree? On the company's website, Crowe Horwath LLP Partner and Leader of Fraud, Ethics, and Anti-corruption Services, Jonathan T. Marks has published a short paper detailing tell-tale signs that might help someone sort out who will be an asset to their business and who could wreak major havoc and "spoil the bunch." We've combed through it and delved deep to look at what these signs are and how you might be able to use them.

Good read!  Many thanks to the mighty marbux for the link.  Be sure to catch the YouTube video series featuring Sir James Goldsmith congressional testimony decrying free trade and corporatism. excerpt: "May 31, 2011 "Information Clearing House" --These are discouraging times, but once in a blue moon a bit of hope appears. I am pleased to report on the bit of hope delivered in March of 2011 by Michael Spence, a Nobel prize-winning economist, assisted by Sandile Hlatshwayo, a researcher at New York University. The two economists have taken a careful empirical look at jobs offshoring and concluded that it has ruined the income and employment prospects for most Americans. To add to the amazement, their research report, "The Evolving Structure of the American Economy and the Employment Challenge," was published by the very establishment Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.cfr.org/industrial-policy/evolving-structure-american-economy-employment-challenge/p24366  For a decade I have warned that US corporations, pressed by Wall Street and large retailers such as Wal-Mart, to move offshore their production for US consumer markets, were simultaneously moving offshore US GDP, US tax base, US consumer income, and irreplaceable career opportunities for American citizens.

Vidio of Ron Paul's plea before Congree to reconsider passing the newly rewritten War Powers Act.  Amazing stuff crammed into five minutes.

50 Things Every American Should Know About The Collapse Of The Economy.  Stunning slide show.

That GOLD! app for iOS and Android is looking pretty good :)  C'mon Tino.  Now is the time.  Link to Priced-in-gold (http://pricedingold.com) excerpt: You may be dreaming of a gold backed dollar, or just everyone carrying around clinking gold coins in their pockets, but a rising community has a different idea. It's called Bitcoin, and it's a peer-to-peer currency that can be used to exchange goods and services online, digital and otherwise, without fees. In order to get Bitcoins, you need to exchange other currencies for Bitcoins (like dollars, euros, or pounds) at places like Mt.Gox. You can also sell goods and services online for Bitcoins. Some examples of Bitcoin stores include online gaming credits, pet wear, and coffee (more examples here). OR, you can create a new 'block,' which is a series of transactions, and you will receive 50 bitcoins. This is very rare, however, and the value of creating a new block will decrease over time. The idea behind Bitcoin is that it is a peer-to-peer exchange system, with an established and predictable rate of currency production. The creation of bitcoins is restricted by an algorithm, so the currency's worth cannot be modified by any actor (banks, central banks, treasuries). Individuals are involved in "mining" for Bitcoins, but it is extremely costly and requires significant computing power. Bitcoins could theoretically act as a store of value in the event of further inflation and devaluation of the U.S. dollar or other currencies.

Matt Taibbi continues to track the dusty trail of Banksters and criminal politicos.  What an amazing story! intro: They weren't murderers or anything; they had merely stolen more money than most people can rationally conceive of, from their own customers, in a few blinks of an eye. But then they went one step further. They came to Washington, took an oath before Congress, and lied about it. Thanks to an extraordinary investigative effort by a Senate subcommittee that unilaterally decided to take up the burden the criminal justice system has repeatedly refused to shoulder, we now know exactly what Goldman Sachs executives like Lloyd Blankfein and Daniel Sparks lied about. We know exactly how they and other top Goldman executives, including David Viniar and Thomas Montag, defrauded their clients. America has been waiting for a case to bring against Wall Street. Here it is, and the evidence has been gift-wrapped and left at the doorstep of federal prosecutors, evidence that doesn't leave much doubt: Goldman Sachs should stand trial.

The Constitution gives Congress power over the national purse, permitting it to tax, to spend and "to borrow money on the credit of the United States." From the time of the founding until the passage of the First Liberty Bond Act in 1917, Congress itself voted on each and every new government bond issue, specifying the amount to be borrowed and the terms involved. Today, exercise of this power has been delegated to the Treasury Department, which generally can borrow up to the debt limit. Yet this practice can easily be changed. It wouldn't even be necessary to repeal the existing "debt ceiling" statutory framework, an action that President Obama might well veto. Congress can simply refuse to use it. In other words, Congress cannot renege on debt already incurred, but it can condition, decrease and even stop issuance of new U.S. debt. This strategy would put Congress's fiscal conservatives very much back in the driver's seat. The need for new government borrowing is constant; currently nearly 40 cents of every dollar the government spends is borrowed. Anytime Congress and the president cannot agree on how new borrowing should be accomplished (and for what purposes), and what additional spending cuts should be implemented to avoid increasing the nation's overall debt burden, spending will simply be cut across the board by 40%. That is one very big incentive for agreement. Of course, were Congress to reclaim this authority and separately approve each new U.S. debt issue, it would once again be directly responsible for government borrowing in a way that it has avoided for nearly 100 years. With political power comes political accountability.

Incredible excerpt: Q: You stated that President Obama was "overruled" by military/intelligence officials regarding the decision to send in military specialists into the Osama Bin Laden compound.  Was that accurate? A: I was told - in these exact terms, "we overruled him." (Obama)  I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president's "persistent hesitation to act."  There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so.  President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president. I was correct in stating there had been a push to invade the compound for several weeks if not months, primarily led by Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, and Jim Clapper.  The primary opposition to this plan originated from Valerie Jarrett, and it was her opposition that was enough to create uncertainty within President Obama.  Obama would meet with various components of the pro-invasion faction, almost always with Jarrett present, and then often fail to indicate his position.  This situation continued for some time, though the division between Jarrett/Obama and the rest intensified more recently, most notably from Hillary Clinton.  She was livid over the president's failure to act, and her office began a campaign of anonymous leaks to the media indicating such.  As for Jarrett, her concern rested on two primary fronts.  One, that the military action could fail and harm the president's already weakened standing with both the American public and the world.  Second, that the attack would be viewed as an act of aggression against Muslims, and further destabilize conditions in the Middle East.  Q: What changed the president's position and enabled the attack against Osama Bin Laden to

excerpt:  We may well decline, and pass on a weaker, more divided, more insolvent and at-risk America to our children. But that is again, entirely a choice, not a fate. It is a decision that many prosperous, but tired and squabbling societies - 4th-century Athens, 5th-century A.D. Rome, 1950s Britain, 1970s America - chose willingly when they redistributed rather than created wealth, embraced envy rather than emulation as their collective creed, whined about not being liked rather than unapologetically assumed unpopularity is always the price of leadership and jealousy its constant twin, and talked of rationing, lectured on what they could not, rather than could, do, and made bickering between the generations, the sexes, the races, the classes, and tribes a national sport, rather than collectively and confidently looked forward to expanding, creating, and uniting in national purpose.

Mary Meekers presentation, "why the USA is screwed".  This chart compares revenues $2.2 T to expenditures of $3.5 T.  Revenues are shrinking fast and expenditures are rising even faster. 

Obama's social security number belongs to French man living in Connecticut.  (1977-1979 issuance of selective service)  the guy would be 119 yrs old today. (born in 1890).  This page is hilarious.  It also includes a video of Obama's Kenyan birth certificate, as well as his immigration records.