Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Towering Federal Debt Is Hidden In A "Roach Motel"

Tuesday, 09 Dec 2014 06:00 AM
By John Morgan

David Stockman, White House budget chief under President Reagan, notes it took the United States 205 years to reach $1 trillion in debt, but only 33 more years to get to the current $18 trillion debt mountain. And he says things are about to get worse.


In Stockman's recollection, the stage for today's fiscal irresponsibility in Washington, D.C. was set in the 1980s, when Congress finagled to show delayed revenue gains from tax increases and a massive payroll tax was buried in a Social Security rescue plan.

"Thereafter, Social security and Medicare entitlement reform was off the table due to the trick of the front-loaded payroll tax increase," he wrote on his Contra Corner blog

"Likewise, the White House took any further tax increases or defense cuts off the table in January 1985. The spending-cut weary politicians of both parties, in turn, were more than happy to oblige by shelving any further meaningful domestic spending reductions, as well.

"So in 1985, fiscal policy went on automatic pilot — where it has more or less languished ever since."

Stockman estimated today's federal debt amounts to 106 percent of GDP, and when state and local debt is factored in, total government debt is 120 percent of GDP – a load that would put many Americans in a homeless shelter if they owed it money on an individual basis.

In his view, what makes today's titanic debt burden possible is concerted action by the Federal Reserve and other central banks to create massive credit expansion and the fact the Fed sells Treasurys to other countries.

"That convoy of money printers generated large but dangerous central bank 'vaults' where Uncle Sam's debt has been temporarily sequestered," Stockman noted.

"It was the equivalent of a monetary roach motel: the bonds went in, but they never came out."
In Stockman's view, the massive monetization of the public debt cannot go on much longer or the global monetary system will be destroyed.

He believes the rosy scenario currently projected by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for 4 percent GDP growth in coming years is ridiculously optimistic and "does not have a snowball's chance of materializing over the next decade. Rather than $8 trillion of cumulative baseline deficits over the next 10 years as projected by CBO, the current policy stalemate in Washington — that has been running for 30 years now — will generate at least $15 trillion of new public debt in the decade ahead."

When that new debt is added to the current $18 trillion hole the nation has dug itself, the mountain of public debt will hit $33 trillion in 10 years, he wrote. At that point, Stockman estimates America's public debt will total a whopping 140 percent of GDP.

The federal debt has risen 70 percent under President Obama, and when it hit $18 trillion last week, it meant that each household in the U.S. now carries the burden of $124,000 in national debt alone — or $56,378 per individual, according to GoldCore's Mark O'Byrne

"This does not include the massive private debt or household debt burden – people's mortgages, personal loans, credit card debt, student loans, car loans and other household debt," he wrote.


Comment:

Two hundred and five years to accumulate one trillion in debt and only 33 years to accumulate another 17 trillion!  That's actually quite mind blowing.  Of course one must take into account inflation.  

According to the National Bureau Of Economic Research, the average annual income for the working class in the year 1800 was a mere $300 a year.  However when the average rent was about $100 a year, and you could buy a loaf of bread for a nickel, and a haircut cost a dime, it's obvious that was enough to live on - back then.  Today, $300 a WEEK is considered above the poverty level, but still on the low side.

But still, even taking inflation into account, 17 trillion in 33 years is mind boggling.  But just how much is even one trillion dollars?

If you spent $1 million a day since Jesus was born, you would have not spent $1 trillion by now... but ~$700 billion- same amount the banks got during bailout. 

Note in the diagram below we see a  human figure.  This is what one hundred million dollars looks like.  It is about three feet high and the size of a forklift pallet.


This is what only one trillion dollars looks like.  Multiply that by 18 and you have our national debt.




National Socialism means responsible spending, not reckless spending.  And one of the reasons why there is so much waste is because of Judeo-Capitalism.  The Judeo-Capitalists WANT this to continue so that they can continue to profit.  They know as well as anyone that this will eventually cause a financial collapse.  However they will be so wealthy, hell they are already so wealthy that none of that will matter to them because they will have so much money they can buy whatever they want regardless of inflation.

National Socialism looks out for the little guy.  Judeo-Capitalism is for the big guy.  Which one do YOU want to be a part of?  If you still think you have a good chance of becoming rich, you are living in a fantasy world right next to the Baggins family and across the street from Gandolph - or is it Gandolf?  Have you seen Smaug lately?

Dan 88!

Monday, December 29, 2014

FED-EX Is Like Robin Hood On Opposite Day

Sam Adler, Opinion




Leaked documents recently revealed that hundreds of international companies have avoided paying billions of dollars in taxes by establishing secret tax havens in the small European country of Luxembourg. Among the tax dodgers is FedEx, a company with a reprehensible track record of avoiding taxation while profiting off of government subsidies.
According to Americans for Tax Fairness, between 2010 and 2013, FedEx made $6 billion but paid absolutely no corporate income taxes. Meanwhile, FedEx received lucrative government contracts that could have gone to the ailing United States Postal Service.
Records show that these three federal agencies are responsible for awarding the most taxpayer-funded contracts to tax-dodging FedEx: the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Justice, and the General Services Administration.
FedEx may not pay its fair share to the IRS, but the company is more than happy to funnel money into the pockets of politicians. In just two years, FedEx spent $50 million lobbying Congress to keep taxes low and to prevent its employees from unionizing.
Taxpayer money shouldn't go to a company that exploits workers and doesn't pay its fair share, especially when government contracts could support USPS, an important public institution that offers employees good wages and benefits.
Comment:
I've written posts on things like this before in general, but when I find out about specific companies doing this - especially if they are well-known and frequently used companies like Fed-Ex, rather than some unknown company like Planet Express Delivery Service, I like to do what I can to expose these shenanigans.  I know it's not all that much exposure but we have to do what we can.
Now is what Fed-Ex doing legal or not?  Well, the answer to that is the good old, "Yes, and No."
Yes it is legal to keep your money in Luxembourg.  No it is not legal to "hide" it there from the IRS.  You see, if you keep your money in Luxembourg, the IRS has no way of finding out how much you have.  It's similar to a Swiss bank account.  The United States government can ask until it's blue-in-the-face, but Luxembourg will never tell how much money a company has sheltered there.  Hell, they won't even admit whether the company has money there or not.
Unfortunately there is nothing we can do about it from the Luxembourg end.  It's their country (actually it's a Grand Duchey meaning it's ruler is a duke, not a king) and we cannot order them to change their laws.  However there's something we can do from this end.
The IRS has a general idea of how much Fed-Ex has hidden there.  Obama could use his executive order power to just go into Fed-Ex and take the money that's owed.  But that will never happen because Fed-Ex is one of the government's puppet masters.  They bought and paid for Obama so he won't lift a finger against them.  Instead, the government will continue to wring tax money out of the middle and working classes while Fed-Ex and the rest of the Judeo-Capitalists continue to get a free ride.
Dan 88!

Sunday, December 28, 2014

Grandparents

Have you ever wondered what the difference is between Grandmothers and 
Grandfathers?

Well, here it is: There was this loving grandfather who always made a 
special effort to spend time with his son's family on weekends.

Every Saturday morning he would take his 5-year-old granddaughter out 
for a drive in the car for some quality time -- pancakes, ice cream, 
candy-- just him and his granddaughter.

One particular Saturday, however, he had a terrible cold and could not 
get out of bed. He knew his granddaughter always looked forward to 
their drives and would be very disappointed. Luckily, his wife came to 
the rescue and said that she would take their granddaughter for her 
weekly drive and breakfast.

When they returned, the little girl anxiously ran upstairs to see her 
grandfather who was still in bed. "Well, did you enjoy your ride with 
grandma"? he asked.

"Not really, PaPa, it was boring. We didn't see a single horse's ass, 
tree hugger, socialist left-wing Obamalover, dipshit,  Muslim camel 
humper, or son of a bitch anywhere we went! We just drove around 
and Grandma smiled at everyone she saw. I really didn't have 
any fun at all".

Almost brings a tear to your eye, doesn't it?

Dan 88!

Saturday, December 27, 2014

Global Warming Skeptics Rushed From Stage at UN Conference

Newsmax
Former NASA astronaut Walt Cunningham and two other global warming skeptics were removed from the stage by United Nations officials while delivering a presentation at a U.N. conference on climate change.
Cunningham and two representatives of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) — executive director Craig Rucker and director of communications Marc Morano — were given 30 minutes for their talk at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Lima, Peru, on December 11.
But they were abruptly told they had to "wrap up" their talk after 18 minutes to accommodate U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who wanted the stage for a photo op.
Kerry was attending the conference to promote a new U.N. climate treaty. He has declared that climate change "may be, in fact, the most serious challenge we face on the planet."
After the three skeptics left as requested, the room remained empty for at least 35 minutes, Climate Depot reported.
"This is an outrage," said Rucker. "We are one of the few skeptical voices of reason here at the conference. To interrupt our press conference and abruptly end our press conference smacks of a cheap form of censorship.
"This was particularly obnoxious as the room remained vacant for quite a while after we left."
Cunningham, who flew into space with the Apollo 7 mission in 1968, told the U.N. before his removal: "CO2 is not a pollutant. Earth's climate history indicates CO2 is not a major factor in climate change. The U.N. has twisted science in order to enrich itself and inflate its own importance."
Cunningham, author of a pamphlet titled "Global Warming: Facts Versus Faith," also stated that climate alarmism is "one of the biggest frauds in the field of science."
Rucker said: "It is mind-boggling that as the world rushes toward adopting a climate agreement, the alleged scientific 'consensus' behind global warming is being blown apart.
"With Antarctic sea ice at record high numbers, polar bears thriving, and no global warming for 18 years and two months, you would think there would be a need to pause and reconsider the evidence for a climate catastrophe."
Comment:
Like I said in yesterday's post, critics of global warming are being silenced just like Holocaust skeptics.  And Liberals have the gall to call US dictators.
With no global warming for 18 years and polar ice caps growing, people who claim global warming is occurring is like the bald guy with three hairs who goes to the barber and spends money insisting he needs a haircut.  Talk about denial!
I hope you have all "recovered" from Christmas.  If not, at least you still have a couple of days to do so.
If anyone did get busted for DUI and is not in jail at this moment (out on bail presumably) I have just one question for you:  Are you stupid or what?!  No matter what lies you tell yourself YOU'RE responsible for your predicament and no one else. I hope at least you have learned from your mistake.  National Socialists do make mistakes from time-to-time, but we also learn from them.
Dan 88!

Friday, December 26, 2014

Climate Change Is A Fraud

Wednesday, 17 Dec 2014 06:07 PM
By Courtney Coren
The climate change theory that man-made global warming is caused by an increase of greenhouse gases "is the greatest scientific fraud in history," says John Casey, president of the Space and Science Research Corporation.

"If you go back and look at how all this got started and look at the 30 years and the $30 billion [spent] in an attempt to make what's always been a weak scientific theory into something valid, we now know after all that effort, money and time, that the greenhouse gas theory as shown in the UN's own climate models has been a miserable failure in predicting climate change," Casey told J.D. Hayworth and Francesca Page on "America's Forum" on Newsmax TV Wednesday.

Especially, he says, when "compared with solar cycles" that he uses to predict climate change, "which are over 90 percent accurate."

He contends that it's hard to believe "why so many people believe in a theory that has been proven to be so unreliable versus models that are very reliable."

Casey is the author of "Dark Winter: How the Sun Is Causing a 30-Year Cold Spell," which was released in September. 

The president of the Space and Science Research Corporation says he came to the conclusion that we are headed for a 30-year cold spell by looking "at measurements of the sun's behavior."

He says that he and his team looked at "24 different climate related parameters and especially the sun, which is the primary cause of climate change. 

"By properly looking at the various components of solar activity, we have been able to discern the key cycles that schedule climate change, and we have made substantial headway in making highly reliable predictions based on that model," he explained.

"The answer to that is this is all a part of the natural cycles of the sun," he contends. 

Casey says that the latest Global Climate Status Report released by the Space and Science Research Corporation, includes "a study of solar activity for the last two major cold eras [which] has shown that this particular warming event is the last 'hora of the sun,' if you will, and is a primary indicator that we're about to fall off a global climate temperature cliff into the new cold era." 

"There is an average line of 18 years long where there's been no effective increase in global temperature," he explained. 

"In fact, based on our models, we're showing a global cooling phase and as our last climate report indicates of the 24 parameters, 15 are showing global cooling as the primary climate trend," he added. 

Comment:

More and more scientists are coming forward and admitting there is no such thing as global warming. Some of them are actually losing their jobs for telling the truth.  Doesn't this sound kind of familiar?

Why do most people believe the global warming fraud is real?  If you look at how it's been handled you'll see that it's been done in a very similar way as the Holohoax.

First, they get a few seemingly reputable scientists who say global warming is real.  Then they get the media to hype it up.  Once it has taken on a life of it's own any scientist who publicly denies global warming is sanctioned - even out-and-out persecuted - by losing their grants, or even their jobs.

Global warming may or may not be perpetrated by Jews, but the techniques used to promote it and silence the opposition certainly were.  You have to admit they are damn clever.

I agree with the other side.  IF, and I say IF the climate is changing we could be heading towards a cooling trend.  I remember a scientist saying many years ago that there is a brief period of global warming just prior to the beginning of an ice age.  Maybe we should be stocking up on parkas instead of short pants?

The real truth is both sides are probably full of it.  Alarmists are out for one thing:  $$$

I hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas.

Dan 88!

Thursday, December 25, 2014

Merry Christmas!


Dan 88!

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Be Safe This Holiday Season

I wasn't certain whether I should post this today or tomorrow, but since many people start their celebrating as early as possible I decided today was the better choice.

I hope you all have a great Christmas.  Part of celebrating is of course drinking.  I'm not trying to say you shouldn't drink, just that I hope you all drink responsibly.

Drinking responsibly means that you don't drink until you fall on your ass, nor drive after you've had more than two drinks.  Anyone who has been drinking and says the old, "I'm okay to drive.  I can handle it."  is being irresponsible.

Part of being a National Socialist is being responsible for your own actions and acting responsibly.  If you are going to drink, then don't drive.  Get a ride from a friend who hasn't been drinking.  

If you should say, "Well I don't want to leave my car.  Someone might steal it or break into it."

Well you should have thought of that before you got drunk.

Don't forget that the cops will be out in force that night, and many will be pissed that they have to work on Christmas or New Year's Eve and may not be inclined to cut you a break because of it.  I don't know about the rest of the country, but in California I believe the penalty for first time DUI is a $500 fine, loss of licence for two years, and your car will be impounded.  

In San Bernardino County there is a $250 towing/impound charge, and $200 for everyday after.  If your car is impounded on Christmas Eve, it will be a total of $450.  The impound lot is of course closed on Christmas Day, but you will still be charged $200.  They may or may not be open the following Friday.  I bet they won't be open.  Many places will be closed to give employees a four day weekend for Christmas.  It will be the same for New Year's as well.  So you may not be able to pick up your car until Monday.  

Get busted before midnight and the total charge will be $1250 to get your car on Monday.  After midnight it will only cost you $1050.  It won't take long before the charge will be more than the car is worth.  

If that happens you can just let them keep it right?  Wrong!  After 30 days (wracking up $200 for every day) they'll sell it at auction.  That means you owe them $6450.  Lets say they get $2000 for it. That means they will bill you the difference:  $4450.  And you won't be able to get your licence back until every cent is paid.  Plus it will effect your credit rating as well.  Is it worth the chance drinking and driving?  I don't think so.

This year let's all be good National Socialists and be responsible for our own actions and not get drunk, get busted (or have an accident) and say those faithful words, "It wasn't MY fault."  Yes it was. 

Dan 88!

Monday, December 22, 2014

Obama Rules Through Executive "Memoranda"

By issuing his directives as "memoranda" rather than executive orders, Obama has downplayed the extent of his executive actions.

USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.

When these two forms of directives are taken together, Obama is on track to take more high-level executive actions than any president since Harry Truman battled the "Do Nothing Congress" almost seven decades ago, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents.

Obama has issued executive orders to give federal employees the day after Christmas off, to impose economic sanctions and to determine how national secrets are classified. He's used presidential memoranda to make policy on gun control, immigration and labor regulations. Tuesday, he used a memorandum to declare Bristol Bay, Alaska, off-limits to oil and gas exploration.

Like executive orders, presidential memoranda don't require action by Congress. They have the same force of law as executive orders and often have consequences just as far-reaching. And some of the most significant actions of the Obama presidency have come not by executive order but by presidential memoranda.

Obama has made prolific use of memoranda despite his own claims that he's used his executive power less than other presidents. "The truth is, even with all the actions I've taken this year, I'm issuing executive orders at the lowest rate in more than 100 years," Obama said in a speech in Austin last July. "So it's not clear how it is that Republicans didn't seem to mind when President Bush took more executive actions than I did."

Obama has issued 195 executive orders as of Tuesday. Published alongside them in the Federal Register are 198 presidential memoranda — all of which carry the same legal force as executive orders.


He's already signed 33% more presidential memoranda in less than six years than Bush did in eight. He's also issued 45% more than the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who assertively used memoranda to signal what kinds of regulations he wanted federal agencies to adopt.

Obama is not the first president to use memoranda to accomplish policy aims. But at this point in his presidency, he's the first to use them more often than executive orders.

"There's been a lot of discussion about executive orders in his presidency, and of course by sheer numbers he's had fewer than other presidents. So the White House and its defenders can say, 'He can't be abusing his executive authority; he's hardly using any orders," said Andrew Rudalevige, a presidency scholar at Bowdoin College. "But if you look at these other vehicles, he has been aggressive in his use of executive power."

So even as he's quietly used memoranda to signal policy changes to federal agencies, Obama and his allies have claimed he's been more restrained in his use of that power.

In a Senate floor speech in July, Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "While Republicans accuse President Obama of executive overreach, they neglect the fact that he has issued far fewer executive orders than any two-term president in the last 50 years."

The White House would not comment on how it uses memoranda and executive orders but has previously said Obama's executive actions "advance an agenda that expands opportunity and rewards hard work and responsibility."

"There is no question that this president has been judicious in his use of executive action, executive orders, and I think those numbers thus far have come in below what President George W. Bush and President Bill Clinton did," said Jay Carney, then the White House press secretary, in February.

Carney, while critical of Bush's executive actions, also said it wasn't the number of executive actions that was important but rather "the quality and the type."

"It is funny to hear Republicans get upset about the suggestion that the president might use legally available authorities to advance an agenda that expands opportunity and rewards hard work and responsibility, when obviously they supported a president who used executive authorities quite widely," he said.

While executive orders have become a kind of Washington shorthand for unilateral presidential action, presidential memoranda have gone largely unexamined. And yet memoranda are often as significant to everyday Americans than executive orders. For example:

• In his State of the Union Address in January, Obama proposed a new retirement savings account for low-income workers called a MyRA. The next week, he issued a presidential memorandum to the Treasury Department instructing it to develop a pilot program.

• In April, Obama directed the Department of Labor to collect salary data from federal contractors and subcontractors to monitor whether they're paying women and minorities fairly.

• In June, Obama told the Department of Education to allow certain borrowers to cap their student loan payments at 10% of income.

They can also be controversial.


AVOIDING 'IMPERIAL OVERREACH'

Obama issued three presidential memoranda after the Sandy Hook school shooting two years ago. They ordered federal law enforcement agencies to trace any firearm that's part of a federal investigation, expanded the data available to the national background check system, and instructed federal agencies to conduct research into the causes and possible solutions to gun violence.

Two more recent memos directed the administration to coordinate an overhaul of the nation's immigration system — a move that congressional Republicans say exceeded his authority. Of the dozens of steps Obama announced as part of his immigration plan last month, none was accomplished by executive order.

Executive orders are numbered — the most recent, Executive Order 13683, modified three previous executive orders. Memoranda are not numbered, not indexed and, until recently, difficult to quantify.

Kenneth Lowande, a political science doctoral student at the University of Virginia, counted up memoranda published in the Code of Federal Regulations since 1945. In an article published in the December issue of Presidential Studies Quarterly, he found that memoranda appear to be replacing executive orders.

Indeed, many of Obama's memoranda do the kinds of things previous presidents did by executive order.

• In 1970, President Nixon issued an executive order on unneeded federal properties. Forty years later, Obama issued a similar policy by memorandum.

• President George W. Bush established the Bob Hope American Patriot Award by executive order in 2003. Obama created the Richard C. Holbrooke Award for Diplomacy by memorandum in 2012.

• President Bush issued Executive Order 13392 in 2005, directing agencies to report on their compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. On his week in office, Obama directed the attorney general to revisit those reports — but did so in a memorandum.

"If you look at some of the titles of memoranda recently, they do look like and mirror executive orders," Lowande said.

The difference may be one of political messaging, he said. An "executive order," he said, "immediately evokes potentially damaging questions of 'imperial overreach.'" Memorandum sounds less threatening.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was once an associate
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was once an associate White House counsel under President Clinton.(Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP)
Though they're just getting attention from some presidential scholars, White House insiders have known about the power of memoranda for some time. In a footnote to her 1999 article in the Harvard Law Review, former Clinton associate White House counsel Elena Kagan — now an Obama appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court — said scholars focused too much on executive orders rather than presidential memoranda.

Kagan said Clinton considered memoranda "a central part of his governing strategy," using them to spur agencies to write regulations restricting tobacco advertising to children, allowing unemployment insurance for paid family leave and requiring agencies to collect racial profiling data.

"The memoranda became, ever increasingly over the course of eight years, Clinton's primary means, self-consciously undertaken, both of setting an administrative agenda that reflected and advanced his policy and political preferences and of ensuring the execution of this program," Kagan wrote.

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

Presidential scholar Phillip Cooper calls presidential memoranda "executive orders by another name, and yet unique."

The law does not define the difference between an executive order and a memorandum, but it does say that the president should publish in the Federal Register executive orders and other documents that "have general applicability and legal effect."

"Something that's in a presidential memorandum in one administration might be captured in an executive order in another," said Jim Hemphill, the special assistant to the director for the government's legal notice publication. "There's no guidance that says, 'Mr. President, here's what needs to be in an executive order.' "

There are subtle differences. Executive orders are numbered; memoranda are not. Memoranda are always published in the Federal Register after proclamations and executive orders. And under Executive Order 11030, signed by President Kennedy in 1962, an executive order must contain a "citation of authority," saying what law it's based on. Memoranda have no such requirement.

Obama, like other presidents, has used memoranda for more routine operations of the executive branch, delegating certain mundane tasks to subordinates. About half of the memoranda published on the White House website are deemed so inconsequential that they're not counted as memoranda in the Federal Register.

Sometimes, there are subtle differences. President Eisenhower signed Executive Order 10789 in 1958 giving emergency contracting authority to the Department of Defense and other Cabinet departments. President Bush added other departments in 2001 and 2003, but he and Obama both used memoranda to give temporary authority to the U.S. Agency for International Development to respond to crises in Iraq and western Africa.

When the president determines the order of succession in a Cabinet-level department — that is, who would take over in the case of the death or resignation of the secretary — he does so by executive order. For other agencies, he uses a memorandum.

Both executive orders and memoranda can vary in importance. One executive order this year changed the name of the National Security Staff to the National Security Council Staff. Both instruments have been used to delegate routine tasks to other federal officials.

'THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT'

Whatever they're called, those executive actions are binding on future administrations unless explicitly revoked by a future president, according to legal opinion from the Justice Department.

The Office of Legal Counsel — which is responsible for advising the president on executive orders and memoranda — says there's no difference between the two. "It has been our consistent view that it is the substance of a presidential determination or directive that is controlling and not whether the document is styled in a particular manner," said a 2000 memo from Acting Assistant Attorney General Randolph Moss to the Clinton White House. He cited a 1945 opinion that said a letter from President Franklin Roosevelt carried the same weight as an executive order.

The Office of Legal Counsel signs off on the legality of executive orders and memoranda. During the first year of Obama's presidency, the Office of Legal Counsel asked Congress for a 14.5% budget increase, justifying its request in part by noting "the large number of executive orders and presidential memoranda that has been issued."

Other classifications of presidential orders carry similar weight. Obama has issued at least 28 presidential policy directives in the area of national security. In a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit last year, a federal court ruled that these, too, are "the functional equivalent of an executive order."

Even the White House sometimes gets tripped up on the distinction. Explaining Obama's memoranda on immigration last month, Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the president would happily "tear up his own executive order" if Congress passes an immigration bill.

Obama had issued no such executive order. Earnest later corrected himself. "I must have misspoke. I meant executive actions. So I apologize," he said.


Comment:

Executive Order versus Memoranda.  Obama has stated that he has written fewer executive orders than any other president.  He's playing with words.  There maybe a technical difference between the two, but the result is the same.

It reminds me of good old Slick Willie when he testified under oath that he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinski.  Then it was discovered they had oral sex.  He tried to mince words.  He said that having oral sex is oral sex.  Just sex means intercourse.  Okay, technically he was right, but he knew damn well that he was being asked if he had any kind of relations with Ms. Lewinski.  He tried to use a kind of play on words to wriggle off the hook.  Obama is trying the same thing.  Okay, there is a technical difference between executive order and executive memoranda but the results are the same so they are both the same in spirit.  He's full of sh*t, just like all of them.

One of the major problems with our system is that our leaders are NOT usually held accountable for their actions.  A few of them get token slaps on the wrist like Slick Willie.  Nixon lost his job (but didn't do one day of jail for the Watergate scandal).  A few others had to stand in the corner for awhile, but how many really got what they deserved?  Not a damn one.  They all received token punishments or got off Scott free.

We need a system that will hold its leaders accountable.  In NS Germany any leader who was caught being incompetent or criminal was dealt with accordingly.  SA Leader Ernst Roehm wasn't killed because he was a homosexual.  He was killed because he was a political dinosaur and refused to give up the idea of a violent revolution.  Who needs a revolution when you're winning elections like the NSDAP was?  Hauptsturmfuhrer  Amon Goeth of the Plaszow Forced Labour Camp was imprisoned by the SS for corruption and murder.

We need to start doing likewise.  We must either execute or imprison corrupt leaders both political and business.  Until we do, things will never improve.  Indeed, they will continue to deteriorate.  The only way we can do this is with National Socialism.  Hail Victory!

Dan 88! 

Sunday, December 21, 2014

It was the night before Christmas - Bundy Style!



Dan 88!

Saturday, December 20, 2014

Swastika Gift Wrap Being Sold At Walgreen's

Tuesday, 09 Dec 2014 06:11 AM
By Clyde Hughes

Gift wrap that contains a swastika design is being removed from Walgreens after a Southern California woman spotted it among some Hanukkah decorations.

Cheryl Shapiro told KNBC-TV she was in a Walgreen store in Northridge, in suburban Los Angeles, when she found the wrapping paper with a geometric blue-and-silver pattern and large blue lines connecting on the edge in the shape of the infamous Nazi symbol.



"I didn't know what to do," Shapiro told the television station. "At first I called my rabbi, but I couldn't get in touch with him. I called for the manager and the assistant manager and they came out and explained what was going on and how upset I was, and how I wanted this taken off the shelves immediately. I was appalled by this."

KNBC-TV reported that the wrap was removed by the managers and other Walgreens stores are doing the same. Walgreens spokesman Phil Caruso declined to comment on the design itself.

"We are in the process of removing the product from our stores," he told the television station.

The swastika, once an ancient symbol of good luck and prosperity in many cultures, is today connected with the murderous Nazi regime responsible for the Holocaust, noted ABC News. Nazi Germany used the symbol to promote the idea of a racially "pure" state and strike fear into Jews and others enemies of Nazi Germany, according to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum website.



The swastika became the most recognizable symbol of Nazi propaganda, appearing on everything from election posters, arm bands, medallions, and badges for military and other organizations.

ABC News reported that the Spanish clothing company Zara was forced to remove one of its T-shirt designs this past summer after complaints came in that a striped shirt with a gold star resembled the uniforms that people were forced to wear in Nazi Germany to identify themselves as Jews. 

ABC News noted that Zara was taken to task as well in 2007 when a handbag line it designed included a symbol resembling a swastika.

Comment:


I wish I had known about this before it was pulled.  It would have been great to have a few rolls of that stuff!

If anyone thinks this was done on purpose then they are idiots.  Someone tried to make an interesting design and the fact that it resembled a Swastika never clicked with them.  It may have even been designed by a computer.  Computers can't be offended so a Swastika wouldn't bother them.

Are any of you old enough to remember a computer game from 1995 called "DOOM"?  There's one room you enter that's full of machinery.  As soon as you enter the machines sink into the floor.  The pattern on the floor is clearly a Swastika.  In a version they released at a later date, the room is the same, except when the machines go into the floor there is no Swastika.  The designers of the game never noticed the Swastika until someone complained about it, and they corrected this in the next edition.  BTW, I have the original version with the Swastika pattern.

It's the same with the shirt.  Whoever designed that one probably never even saw a concentration camp uniform, or if they did, it was a black-and-white photo and they didn't know the stripes were yellow.  Looking at old photos, I would think the stripes were white if I didn't know better.

Then again, maybe someone was trying to make a statement with these items.  Probably not.  It was most likely unintentional but if someone was trying to sneak a message through then I say GOOD FOR YOU!  KEEP 'EM COMING!


Dan 88!

Friday, December 19, 2014

Cuba

There's a lot of talk, both positive and negative about the recent government decision to renew diplomatic ties with Cuba.  A lot of people - especially old-timers - are up in arms about it.  My opinion is why should we care?

First of all, Cuba is not a threat to us.  Even though they are only 90 miles off of Florida they are a third rate country in a second rate sea (Caribbean).  I don't think we have to worry about Cuban tanks rolling down main street.  Sure they have a few nukes.  Whatever they give us we'll give right back and both of us lose.  To think Cuba is a real threat is laughable.

We know who the real threat is.  I won't mention any names, but let's just say that Hannukah began day before yesterday.  Perhaps they are also responsible for Communism, but still...

I'm more concerned about illegal aliens invading our borders.  How about Judeo-Capitalists sending our jobs overseas?  What about corruption right here at home?  Shall I go on?

As much as we despise Communism, Cuba is not much of a threat.  Don't trust them of course, but they are hardly the barbarians at the gate.  Indeed, I can think of at least one benefit to restoring relations with them.  As things used to be, any Cuban who could get to the United States automatically was allowed to stay as a "refugee from Communism".  Now that relations have been restored, this will no  longer be the case.  And as the Cuban government won't allow their citizens to leave whenever they please like with Mexico, we will not have a flood of illegals at the border, and those that do get here can be sent back instead of giving them refugee status.

The only thing that does bother me is that this all came as a surprise.  The American people were not told this was being done.  It was sprung on us without warning.  That was wrong.  As citizens, we have a right to decide which countries we will have relations with and which we will not.  At the very least we have the right to know BEFORE something like this is done rather than after.  This is another case of big government's attitude that the people don't understand what's best for the country and they do, so there's no reason to discuss it with them.  In other words, ZOG knows best so we should just shut the hell up.

BTW, I'm sure they were planning this BEFORE November's elections.  They knew this could cost them the elections so they held off until now.  More government sneakiness.  At least it didn't matter.  They lost anyway.  Not that it matters to National Socialists,  but it does give me some personal satisfaction that the way they have done things came back to bite them on their collective asses.  

But overall do I care one way or the other?  Not really.  Like I said Cuba is no longer a serious threat and anything they can do to us we can do to them faster and more severe.  Hey, maybe the price of Cuban cigars will drop to a reasonable level now.  $50 a smoke on the Black Market is ridiculous.  

Dan 88!

Thursday, December 18, 2014

A Jew Wants To Break Up Big Banks? Hmmm...


As the Senate met in a rare Saturday session, Sen. Bernie Sanders said he will introduce legislation to break up Wall Street megabanks that are using a bill before the Senate this weekend to put taxpayers on the hook for the banks’ risky investments. The House-passed bill would roll back a law limiting risky investments like those that caused the financial crisis of 2008 and the recession that followed.

“Over the last several days, it has become abundantly clear that Congress does not regulate Wall Street but Wall Street regulates Congress.  If Wall Street lobbyists can literally write a provision into law that will allow too-big-to-fail banks to make the same risky bets that nearly destroyed our economy just a few years ago, it should be obvious to all that their incredible economic and political power is a huge danger to our economy and our way of life,” Sanders said.
Lobbyists for Citigroup drafted the measure and JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon reportedly called congressmen to lobby for the provision that would gut a key provision of Dodd-Frank, the Wall Street reform law passed in 2010.
“Enough is enough,” Sanders said. “Today, almost all of the too-big-to-fail banks are bigger and even more powerful than they were before we bailed them out. The six largest financial institutions have over $9.8 trillion in assets — the equivalent of more than 60 percent of GDP.  They issue over half of the mortgages and more than two-thirds of the credit cards in America
“If Congress cannot regulate Wall Street, there is just one alternative.  It is time to break these too-big-to-fail banks up so that they can never again destroy the jobs, homes, and life savings of the American people.
“At the beginning of the new Congress, I will be introducing legislation that will break these behemoth banks up once and for all. If a financial institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist.  I look forward to working with both progressive and conservative Senators who have the courage to stand up to Wall Street and protect the working families of this country,” Sanders said.     
Comment:

A Jew wants to break up big banks?  Seeing how this legislation - if passed - would effect only American banks, I wonder if Sanders has any relatives named Rothschild or Warburton.  Am I just being paranoid in suspecting his motives here?  Perhaps, but considering the past record of Jewish business practices it's justified.

I suppose there's a remote chance that he is sincere, but that possibility is about the same as Jesse Jackson becoming a spokesman for the Ku Klux Klan.  
I believe that one of two things are going on.  The first possibility is he's just trying to be a White Knight and possibly trying to improve the image of Jewish businessmen.  The other possibility is that somehow this bill is going to make someone a lot of money - or BOTH.  I can't be sure which, but I'll bet it's one or the other - or a little of both.
Let's take a better look at Senator Sanders (Vermont).  First, he's Jewish.  He calls himself an Independent, but he also affiliates himself with the Democrats (which is common with Jews).  He may live in and represent Vermont, but his hometown is Jew York City.  He is married to a White woman, Jane Driscoll, which makes him a race mixer.  He has been an elected official starting in 1981 as mayor of Burlington, Vermont (a nice little small New England town complete with maple trees and a church with a white steeple just like in a Norman Rockwell print), then as a congressman, and now a senator.  He has talked about running for president.  He is a long time systemite.

Now he has consistently lobbied AGAINST big business, but I think he is a fraud.  He himself is a multimillionaire, and you don't get that wealthy by not being in bed with Judeo-Capitalism.  He is a pressure valve who is trying to APPEAR to be a friend of the Working Class when in reality, he is no more our friend than the Koch Brothers - who are also Jewish.
My father once told me that the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans will stab you in the back the first chance they get.  The Democrats will shake your hand, call you pal, and THEN stab you in the back.  Smart man, my father.
Dan 88!        

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

President of the United States: Let us keep our American dream

By Caroline Catois 




An 8 year backlog in issuing green cards could result in my family losing everything. We moved to the U.S. legally over eight years ago and have a thriving business, but until we receive our green cards, we will be forced to leave the US. when our visa expires. We will not be allowed to return until our green cards are issued, leaving behind our business, our children's education, and what we now consider home. 
My husband and I wanted to open our own restaurant and raise our family in the United States. In 2006 we went for it, successfully obtaining a 2-year investment visa and moving to Scottsdale, Arizona. Our endeavor was quickly rewarded with a restaurant filled with loyal customers. We bought a house, a car, paid all the necessary taxes, enrolled our four children in school, and engaged in the local community. Our American dream was now a reality and in 2010 we applied for our green cards.
In 2014 we finally got the wonderful news we had been approved for our green cards. The good news quickly turned into a horrifying scenario. We learned it could take up to eight years to be issued. We were devastated. Under the green card program, our current visas will expire and will not be able to be renewed. We will be forced to leave the country and unable to return for possibly 8 years. Doing so would mean disaster -- our business would have to be closed, our children wouldn't be able to return to their schools, and our bills would stack up.
We have done everything right and it feels like we are being punished. The State Department has the power to issue a special provision for my family, but they have refused to do so.  Considering that so many ILLEGAL aliens are being granted amnesty and allowed to stay in this country, we can't understand why we, who have done everything by the book are being forced to leave.
Comment:
I think the Cartois family knows just as well as we do why they are being deported but they are not allowed to say it.  They are being deported because they are White.  Let the Mestizos stay, deport the Whites.  That's the new American way.
Here's something else to consider:  Mestizos come here to TAKE our jobs.  The Cartois have provided there own jobs by opening a French restaurant.  They have paid taxes and given to the community since the moment they arrived in this country rather than being a burden to it.  Too bad they are the wrong colour.
If they end up being deported they will not be able to pay their mortgage on their house and bills for their restaurant.  They will lose everything plus get a number of nice black marks on their credit history.  Whether they stay in France or are able to come back to the United States some day they won't be able to buy a house or start a business for a very long time (ten years, I believe).  Great system we have going here.  Stick it to the Whites, kiss non-White ass.  If you don't, then you must be a racist.
Dan 88!

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

A Letter From Beyond The Grave



My name was Antonio West. I was the 13-month old child who was shot in 
the face at point blank range by two black teens, who were attempting 
to rob my mother, who was also shot. 

I think my murder and my mommy’s wounding made the news for maybe a 
day, and then disappeared.

A Grand Jury of my mommy's peers from Brunswick, Georgia ruled the 
black teens who murdered me will not face the death penalty... too bad 
it was me who got the death sentence from my killers instead, because 
Mommy didn’t have the money they demanded. 

See, my family made the mistake of being white in a 73% non-white 
neighborhood, but my murder wasn’t ruled a ‘hate crime’ even
though they called her a "Cracker Bitch".
 
Oh, and President Obama didn’t take a single moment to acknowledge my 
murder. He couldn’t have any children who could possibly look like me 
- so why should he care?

I’m one of the youngest murder victims in our great Nation's history, 
but the media didn’t care to cover the story of my being killed in 
cold blood.

There isn’t a white equivalent of Al Sharpton, because if there was he 
would be branded a ‘racist’. So no one’s rushing to Brunswick, Georgia 
to demonstrate and demand ‘justice’ for me. There’s no ‘White Panther’ 
party, either, to put a bounty on the lives of the two black teens who 
murdered me. 

I have no voice, I have no representation, and unlike those who shot 
me in the face while I sat innocently in my stroller - I no longer 
have my life.
 
Isn’t this a great country?

So while you’re out seeking ‘justice for Trayvon’ and Michael Brown, 
please remember to seek ‘justice’ for me. Tell your friends about me, 
tell your families, get tee-shirts with my face on them, and say, "Hands
up don't shoot!".



Comment:

If this doesn't tear your heart out then you have no soul. 

Dan 88!