How Much Taxation Would Fund Current Spending?

December 12, 2012
By Justin Hohn

 
 To best understand this spending aspect of the current budget negotiations in Washington, we must answer one crucial question: how much taxation on the top income-earners would be required to fully fund the present level of government spending?

To do so, we must first make the unreasonable assumption that the rich will not respond to confiscatory tax rates and hide money from being taxed.  This is unreasonable because no scheme of taxation since WW2 has been able to capture more than 21% of GDP.  With current spending levels around 23% of GDP, history suggests that no level of taxation we have yet tried would actually fully fund our current level of spending.  But if we indulged some "static scoring" and assumed a static tax base, what would a zero-deficit, soak-the-rich taxation scheme look like at current spending levels?

For example, what would a 100% income tax on all those who earn over $10 million amount to?  I'm not taking about a wimpy marginal rate, where one might tax only those dollars of income over $10 million (leaving the taxpayer $10 million).  No, I'm saying you find all those who made more than $10 million and take every last penny -- an absolute tax of 100%.

Using 2009 data, the IRS says that 8,274 tax returns were filed with incomes over $10 million.  The total amount of income on those returns was $240.1 billion.

Our federal government alone is spending more than $10 billion a day.  Thus, a 100% confiscation of all income of those making more than $10 million would amount to less than 24 days of federal spending.

If we drop that "tax" point down to $1 million, the picture changes radically.  The IRS says 236,883 Americans filed returns with more than $1 million in income.  They reported a total income of $726.91B.  While that is a lot of money, it's less than just Medicare and Medicaid, which cost $1 trillion together.

Confiscating 100% of all income from those who made over $1M funds the federal government for 72 days.

Therefore, we have to go farther down the income ladder.  Merely taking 100% of what the "millionaires and billionaires" are reporting as income won't do it -- despite the campaign rhetoric from the president.

Let's move the bogey down to $200,000 in income.  That's even lower than the $250,000-earners President Obama thinks should pay more.  What happens if we confiscate 100% of all the income for people who make more than $200K?

The IRS received 3,924,490 tax returns showing an income over $200K.  These returns represent a total income of $1.964 trillion!  That's a huge amount of money.

But it's still not enough.  The federal government is spending about double that this year.

Confiscating 100% of the income from those who made more than $200K funds the federal government for only about six months.

Even if you think that $200K per year is filthy rich, taking all of the income of such people for an entire year isn't even close to funding our federal government for a full year -- never mind state and local government.

The next step down in the 2009 IRS data is the $100K income point.

There are a lot more taxpayers reporting over $100K income then there are over $200K.  The IRS says that only 2.8% of returns reported over $200K in income, but 12.4% of returns reported over $100K in income.  So even though the cutoff is half as much income, it represents about five times as many taxpayers.
The data indicate that 17,446,537 tax returns showed an income over $100,000.  These returns represented a total income of $3.765 trillion.

Estimated 2012 spending comes in at $3.796 trillion (refer to page 205 here).  This is still $30 billion more than a 100% confiscation of the annual income of all Americans that reported more than $100K of income for 2009.

The bottom line is that we cannot fund our current levels of spending even if we make unrealistically charitable assumptions about taxpayer response to confiscatory tax rates and confiscate the entire annual income of every American who made more than $100K in 2009.

Justin Hohn is a former Air Force officer who blogs at www.justinhohn.typepad.com.

American Thinker

Dangerous Trends

November 26, 2012

 The forefathers and many others warned of the dangers of too much democracy. It was such a source of consternation to them that they devoted much of their time either warning against it or describing its many failings. Given the amount of effort expended on the subject it is amazing the general public have little clue they even opposed it let alone why. Even a group of college professors taking questions on PBS could not answer the simple question, “Why did the founding fathers mistrust democracy?” Of course whether they actually were befuddled to find an answer or unwilling to wade in that pond is any ones guess. The truth is the founders recoil at democratic governance is as easy to understand as liberal professors embrace of it.

The fact is democratic governments have several flaws not the least of which is the inherent tendency to suppress the minority. One only needs to look to the suffering of Christians in predominant Muslim countries to see this is true. Of course minorities can be manufactured by the art of division. Even the most superficial skimming of world history can find unending examples groups used as scapegoats for the greater society.

What would Hitler of been without the Jews to blame or communists without the wealthy to inspire envy driven rage? The fact is anybody at anytime can find themselves the target of a political demagogue seeking power at the expense of others.

There is little protection against this most insidious of democratic failings. Despite the words of Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, the fact that legislators can make no rule that does not also apply to them is no hedge against this type of tyranny. Neither is a constitution if it is ignored or rendered useless by those who see it as their right to remold it to fit the times.

It is no wonder that the politics of division is the bread and butter of those for whom democracy is a religion. Divide and demonize, also known as the art of demagoguery, can be a destructive force within a society without equal. The part of society most susceptible to being on the losing end of this type of communal debauchery is the wealthy. For this reason democratic societies almost always end up sacrificing themselves on the altar of envy by confiscating and redistributing the property of the upper classes. (what the founders would of called leveling) Of course the wealthy are not the only ones for whom democracy is a threat. Christians, who often stand in the way the democratic demagogue’s plans, rural folks that want to be left alone, entrepreneurs who wish to make their own way, hunters, gun owners and scores of others can find themselves the odd men out.

Such is the tendency of democracies to self-destruct into a factious mass of humanity. Unfortunately such seems to be the direction of Western Civilization. Only two items stand in the way of anarchy and the inevitable dictatorship that follows; the Rule of Law and a formidable constitution. It should come as no surprise that both of these bulwarks of freedom are now under attack. The Rule of Law is under assault by those that seek social justice above blind impartiality. The Constitution, that most principled of documents, is being undermined by courts and legislatures that justify molding it more to their liking by calling it a living document.  All of this makes the present direction of American politics all the more alarming.

In the last American election the politics of division and demonization were in full swing. Young were pitted against old, rich against poor, black against white, and women against men in a philosophical cage fight. It seems in a country that polls say is tired of divisive politics; it is the demagogue that can find the most ways to divide America that wins. It is all a fine example of D/democratic politics of the kind the country was warned about more than two hundred years ago.

If the West and most importantly Americans wish to see where the current path ends they need not to look far. Much of the world is caught up in democratically driven death spirals. In the Islamic countries, where no history of liberty exists, people have been thrust by events and the west to demand their democratic rights.

The end result is Egypt looks to be getting ready to join Iran in a brotherhood of despotic Islamic rule; Tunisia is likely soon to follow with Iraq and others not far behind. The terrorist’s dream of a great pan-Islamic dictatorship seems to be unfolding before the world, all with democratic credentials.

Closer to the U.S. doorstep, Venezuela too is showing how tyranny and democracy can be soul mates. The fact is liberty without order is anarchy, freedom without restraint is tyranny and democracy unrestrained is the playground of demagogues and despots. Only a country whose liberty is based in principles of mutual respect and individual rights can survive.  Let that be sacrificed to public opinion or the so called public good and freedom is lost. Even now the bells are tolling for liberty in the Land of the Free.

It is a dangerous trend that shows no sign of slowing and why should it? As the right to religious freedom is sacrificed for the bauble of free birth control the majority of Americans see no reason to cry foul. When the Justice Department says Habeas Corpus is no longer a right but an option to be exercised at its discretion the populous doesn’t even bat an eye. Even ones medical records, once seen as sacrosanct, are now property of the government. The list goes on but the pattern is clear, for most Americans the slide towards democratic tyranny is of less concern than tomorrow’s weather.

The Conservative Mind

Deliverance with Better Teeth, Clothes, and Haircuts

October 14, 2012
By Clarice Feldman

People who haven't been paying attention were surprised to learn of this week's debate moderator's (Martha Raddatz) close connection to the President. He was a guest at one of her three weddings and a she was invited to his wedding and a visitor to the vice-president's home just months ago. Other bloggers have made lists of the substantial number of media figures married to Administration appointees and Democratic Party figures. I don't know why this should be surprising. The incestuous relationship between the media and the Democrats is of such longstanding that you could say the Capitol is like Deliverance with better clothes and haircuts.
 
In this week's dueling banjos (vice presidential debate) she played her role, working in tandem with vice President Biden to block Congressman Paul Ryan from having  an uninterrupted sentence of consequence. Still, Biden could not exercise even a modicum of restraint and his constant heckling, inappropriate laughing and smirking, certainly brought to mind  Lonnie, the inbred banjo playing boy in the movie.

Despite the best efforts of these two, Congressman Ryan held his own and suggested a  maturity and gravitas no one in the present administration has.

The bigger news of the week, it seems to me, is that the Administration's recounting of what happened in Benghazi has been proven to be a pack of lies, the intelligence community is refusing to take the fall for the Administration's disregard for the lives of its own representatives abroad, and the media is continuing to do its best to divert public attention away from this major foreign policy debacle.

The Gaffe that Wasn't 

On September 11, crowds in Cairo breached the U.S. embassy walls and our consulate in Benghazi was attacked resulting in the murder of our Ambassador, a Marine and two navy SEALs. The next day, Mitt Romney was openly critical of a U.S. State Department official in Cairo who apologized for the provoking the riots, blaming them on "Innocence of the Moslems," a video produced in the US.  Which few if any had seen.

Noemie Emery, recounts the media response and why it led the Administration to even further fantastical lies and a disastrous presidential debate performance:

For days after, Romney's "mistake" was the story. On Sunday, after a week in which Obama was burned in effigy on several continents and his Middle Eastern policy exposed as a failure, he lost his best (perhaps his sole) campaign issue, and questions were raised about criminal negligence. But Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post said that Mitt Romney had had "the worst week in Washington." Obama's failures had turned out to hurt Romney, most of the press corps agreed.

Obama had seen that his friends would protect him, and so he believed he could mail it in Wednesday [the day of the Presidential debate], but this was the venue that could not be spun.

No filter. No edits. No choosing what to put in or leave out. No shaping of the story. Just the story itself, rolled out in real time, sans narration, before 70 million American voters, undoing six years of hype and hysterics. It revealed one small, not all that keen academic, having been inflated by the narrators beyond all recognition, dissolving before everyone's eyes.

The intelligence community fights back

Shortly after the murders of the Ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi , Susan Rice, the cabinet level U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. took to the airwaves stating that the attack was a "spontaneous reaction" to the same video, "Innocence of the Moslems,"  The rest of the White House spin machine went into overdrive, making sure the film's producer was taken into custody in full view of media photographers. 

The idea, I suppose, was either to pull off a false narrative or, at least, to set this as a first impression in voters' minds, an impression, which they hoped later, contrary information would not fully shake.

The contrary information has started rolling in, and it appears that even a lapdog press cannot completely hide it. The alternative media and the bumbling of the Administration's own spokespersons are making it impossible for the dominant media to completely ignore the debacle in Benghazi and the utter failure of the President's erstwhile jewel in the crown, his faux foreign policy accomplishments.

The Washington Free Beacon details the unraveling by the intelligence community of the Benghazi "cover up" by the Administration:

Intelligence held back from senior officials and the public includes numerous classified reports revealing clear Iranian support for jihadists throughout the tumultuous North Africa and Middle East region, as well as notably widespread al Qaeda penetration into Egypt and Libya in the months before the deadly Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

...Intelligence officials pointed to the statement issued Sept. 28 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) that raised additional concern about the administration's apparent mishandling of intelligence. The ODNI statement said that "in the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo."

Officials say the ODNI's false information was either knowingly disseminated or was directed to be put out by senior policy officials for political reasons, since the statement was contradicted by numerous intelligence reports at the time of the attack indicating it was al Qaeda-related terrorism.

Officials with access to intelligence reports, based on both technical spying and human agents, said specific reporting revealed an alarming surge in clandestine al Qaeda activity months before the attack in Benghazi. [snip]

 "The Obama Administration is afraid to admit al Qaeda is running rampant throughout the region because it would expose the truth instead of what President Obama so pompously spouted during the Democratic Convention" said the official.

Indeed, as Eli Lake reported, before the attack the Administration had intercepted a message from an Al Qaeda group  saying they were going ahead with their attack in Benghazi. 

... the intercept was one of several monitored communications during and after the attacks between members of a local militia called Ansar al-Sharia and AQIM, which, taken together, suggest the assault was in fact a premeditated terrorist attack, according to U.S. intelligence and counter-terrorism officials not authorized to talk to the press.

In one of the calls, for example, members of Ansar al-Sharia bragged about their successful attack against the American consulate and the U.S. ambassador.

It's unclear why the talking points said the attacks were spontaneous and why they didn't mention the possibility of al Qaeda involvement, given the content of the intercepts and the organizations the speakers were affiliated with. One U.S. intelligence officer said the widely distributed assessment was an example of "cherry picking," or choosing one piece of intelligence and ignoring other pieces, to support a preferred thesis.

Callous Disregard for Security in Benghazi

In  scantily reported hearings before the House Government Oversight Committee, it appeared that the administration had repeatedly, callously ignored pleas from our people in Libya for greater security.

During a hearing of the House Government Oversight Committee: The Former Security Officer for the embassy in Libya says that as far as he was concerned, the Taliban were inside the [State Department] building (October 10, 2012).

For its part the State Department was also walking away from Ambassador Rice. Maybe Secretary Clinton hoped that would make voters forget she taped an idiotic video shown in Pakistan apologizing for the film or that she continued this charade while standing next to the caskets of those men murdered by her department's brutally cold disregard for their safety.

Perhaps there was no other choice but to throw Rice under the bus now that the lid was off.

In an unusual display of disunity, State Department officials have disowned remarks by one of their top officials, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, regarding her explanation of the deadly terrorist assault on U.S. diplomats in Libya in September. Not only did they say Rice's characterization of those attacks as "spontaneous" was wrong, but also, they said that assessment was never the conclusion of the State Department at any point in time.

In a conference call to reporters on Tuesday, senior State Department officials said they couldn't explain why Rice went on a Sunday talk show blitz last month describing the Benghazi attacks as a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam film in the U.S. "That was not our conclusion," the officials said. "That is the question you'd have to ask others."

Everyone at State seemed to be pointing fingers at others and none of their testimony appeared coherent:

Ambassador Patrick Kennedy defended UN Ambassador Susan Rice's claim on September 16 that the attack was part of a spontaneous protest that erupted over an anti-Islam video, saying that anyone at the State Department would have said the same thing as Rice based on the intelligence available at the time. "If any administration official, including any career official, were on television on Sunday, September 16, they would have said what Ambassador Rice said. The information she had at that point from the intelligence community is the same that I had at that point," said Kennedy.

But, as Republicans on the Oversight Committee pointed out, that appears to contradict Kennedy's comments from a September 12 unclassified briefing, when he reportedly called it a terrorist attack.

Another State Department official, Charlene Lamb, wrote in her prepared testimony (but did not read aloud) that she was able to monitor the attack "in almost real-time" once a Diplomatic Security agent activated the imminent danger notification system. Yet she didn't explain why the State Department and other administration officials initially said spontaneous protests were responsible for the attack, if there had been officials monitoring it in real-time.
Both Kennedy's and Lamb's comments also contradicted the State Department's latest official position. In a conference call last night, senior State Department officials told reporters that the department had never believed the attack stemmed from a spontaneous protest.

Moe Larry and Curly 

Before the week was out, administration and party spokespersons were imitating the Three Stooges .

White House Spokesman Jay Carney offered up that it is an "editorial judgment" to say the Administration was wrong on the "crisis" in Libya.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Party said just because the Administration's statements about what happened in Libya were wrong, it doesn't mean they were "false."
Stephanie Cutter,  deputy campaign manager for President Barack Obama's 2012 reelection campaign, offered up this: "...the entire reason [the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans] has become the political topic it is, is because of  Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan..."

It really is time we had some new blood in the Capitol, the gene pool is badly polluted with mendacious numbskulls.

American Thinker

Fact Check: Labor Secretary Solis Misleads on Jobs Revisions

by Joel B. Pollak 5 Oct 2012

 Suspicion about the federal government's September jobs report has fallen on Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, who appeared on CNBC this morning and defended the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), claiming--falsely--that upward revisions of 86,000 jobs were from the private sector. In fact, the new number is entirely accounted for by upwards revisions to state and federal government payrolls. The BLS reported that while only 114,000 jobs were created in September--which would have translated into a rise in unemployment from 8.1% to 8.2%--the unemployment rate fell dramatically to 7.8%. That unusual drop is the fastest in nearly three decades, and was unexpected even in the rosiest predictions.

One reason for the rise was an upward revision of 86,000 to the July and August jobs numbers--all of which came from a 91,000 increase in the estimate of public sector jobs. Private sector job estimates were actually revised downward by 5,000.

In addition, the BLS reported a large rise in the number of part-time jobs, adding 600,000 jobs to the total--a dramatic increase of 7.5%, not explained by any other economic indicators--and raising questions about whether the government had changed the way it counted part-time workers.
Solis was adamant today in defending both the revisions and the BLS's methodology for counting part-time workers--relying largely on the upwards revisions for July and August jobs (emphasis added):

CNBC: We're getting bombarded by people who do not believe the number. They believe this number was fixed and typed to coincide with Election Day. What do you say to them?...I'll rephrase the question. A lot of people do not believe the 7.8 number. They believe that somehow BLS fixed this to coincide with the election cycle. What is labor's response?

Solis: You know, I'm insulted when I hear that because we have a very professional, civil service organization where you have top, top economists that work at the BLS. They've been doing these calculations. These are -- these are our best trained and best-skilled individuals working in the BLS, and it's really ludicrous to hear that kind of statement, and I say that because just look at the -- we have to look at what happens across the board, not just in one month, but look what happened in the last two months. We also saw revisions there upwards of 86,000 additional jobs added and this brings us now to 5.2 million private sector jobs across the board, we saw 104 private sector jobs created....

CNBC: Before I let you go, you say skepticism over the numbers are ludicrous. You say you're insulted. Is there a danger, you believe, when large sections of the country don't believe the data. Not that it's ever been considered gospel, but when you have disbelief how much danger is embedded in that?

Solis: I will tell you that we look at each report differently. We just saw revisions for the last two months and this happens. I mean, these are estimates that obviously, the BLS puts out. They do the best calculation, using the best measurements and tools and we've been using them for the past 70 years. We haven't changed anything and the information that I received is given to me by our professional, civil service staff in the BLS.

Note that Solis describes the 86,000 upward revision as if it were an increase in private sector jobs, though in fact the increase came entirely from revisions to public sector payrolls by cash-strapped federal and state governments. Instead of shedding jobs, as previously claimed, governments have been adding jobs.

Big Government

Government Clampdown on Free Speech: Marine vs. Occupier

August 29, 2012
By M. Catharine Evans

In mid-August, government and law enforcement officials went to former Marine Brandon Raub's door with no warrant.  They questioned Raub about what they considered ominous Facebook postings, handcuffed him, and forced him to undergo a psych evaluation at a local hospital.

The 26-year-old North Chesterfield, Virginia man was taken into custody by FBI and Secret Service agents as well as Chesterfield police for posting anti-government messages on his private Facebook page.
Raub was released on August 23, but not before he was transferred to a veterans' hospital psychiatric unit 188 miles away from his home.

John W. Whitehead, a constitutional lawyer and executive director of the Virginia-based Rutherford Institute, dispatched two of the group's attorneys to represent Raub at a mental health hearing.  Whitehead expressed concern that government officials were monitoring citizens' private Facebook accounts and targeting people with opposing views.

For government officials to not only arrest Brandon Raub for doing nothing more than exercising his First Amendment rights but to actually force him to undergo psychological evaluations and detain him against his will goes against every constitutional principle this country was founded upon[.] ...

The posts I read that supposedly were of concern were libertarian-type posts I see all the time[.] ...

Dee Rybiski, an FBI spokeswoman in Richmond, Virginia, said there was no Facebook intrusion.

"We received quite a few complaints about what were perceived as threatening posts," she said. "Given the circumstances with the things that have gone on in the country with some of these mass shootings, it would be horrible for law enforcement not to pay attention to complaints."

Ms. Rybiski should have added, "Unless the person in question is in agreement with the current administration."

Raub's exercise of his First Amendment rights didn't come close to the violent Facebook postings of a 26-year-old Philadelphia man, Joshua Scott Albert. 

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that the former restaurant worker launched a "Kill Mitt Romney" page earlier this month.  Then, just days ago, Albert, the creator of a well-known site which criticized the restaurant industry, posted another incendiary page in support of two alleged cop-killers.  The "I Support Chancier McFarland & Rafael Jones" page showed graphic "images of police officers, one headless and the other with no hands."

The U.S. Secret Service said it was aware of the "Kill Mitt Romney" post, but apparently Albert's direct threat against a presidential candidate didn't warrant an involuntary trip to a psych facility.

"We are aware of it and we are taking appropriate investigative steps," Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan told FoxNews.com.

Donovan said Albert could potentially face prosecution, if the page is deemed more than an ill-advised lark.

"People have a right to free speech, but we have to determine what their intent is," Donovan said.

In an interview with the Philly Post, Albert said his support for alleged cop-killers was "a joke, a parody."  He also says he's hiding out somewhere in New England:

There are reports that District Attorney Seth Williams is looking into the possibility of filing charges against you. Have you spoken with an attorney?

No. I know that I've done nothing illegal. I am completely conscious of that. I have not made any threats. I would not make any threats. And I genuinely don't want Mitt Romney to be assassinated. That page hasn't gone national, has it? No one else has reported on it, have they? ... I hope he gets elected so I have something to make fun of. And no, that's not me endorsing Mitt Romney.

So, again, I ask you. Why don't you just go away?

I enjoy the humor aspect of me being able to say all this. But in all honesty, I am living in a remote area in New England. I mean remote.

Why the double standard?  Raub, a former Marine who served his country from 2005 to 2011, gets picked up at his home by various government personnel while the Secret Service protects Albert's right to free speech.

Could it be that Albert was involved with Occupy Philly?  A December 6, 2011 article in the Philadelphia Weekly made mention of none other than Joshua Scott Albert.  The then 25-year-old occupier described a confrontation with police at an early December Occupy protest.

The article makes it clear that videos obtained that evening suggested the occupiers were the ones responsible for any rough stuff.

Joshua Scott Albert, 25, says he was attacked twice by cops that night. Albert says a cop threw him up against the wall at the 7-11 near 18th and JFK. "I was on the ground and they hit me with their bikes," says Albert. "I preface this by saying since day one, I have not been friendly to the cops ... I've said some really harsh things to them, but they have a gun and badge."

Earlier this year, Albert was arrested for disorderly conduct after giving a cop the finger.
"They were going to arrest me until the crowd shouted, 'Let him go.'" He says he has a bruise on his shin.

"There was a barricade there [that] we took down," says Albert. "We started running. Sgt. Smith of Civil Affairs grabbed me by the neck, slammed me up against the news stand, and held me there for a good few seconds, taunting me."

It's pretty obvious with the tale of these two 26-year-olds which way the wind is blowing.  Raub is hauled in for a mental health examination because he's not too keen on the current administration, while Albert gets a pass for his unabashed hatred of Romney and cops.

The Obama regime will just ignore Albert's little lark.  Not so with Raub.
Remember this administration's support of the Occupy movement?  Obama defended the protesters as exhibiting a "broad-based frustration" with the folks in the Republican Party and Congress.

Who can forget Obama's attorney general looking the other way when Black Panthers put a bounty on George Zimmerman's head?  Or when Holder refused to prosecute the club-wielding thugs stationed at a polling booth in 2008?

Now a former Marine is shoved into a police car in violation of his constitutional rights while an Occupier with an arrest record and a bona fide threat against a presidential candidate is protected.

Read more M. Catharine Evans at Potter Williams Report.

American Thinker

Guns N’ Rose colored deals

By Doug Hagmann 

 The more research and investigation one does into the Obama-Napolitano-Holder ATF sanctioned Fast and Furious operation, the greater is the stench that emanates from the ties between Obama, his minions and the global bankers. From claims of “executive privilege” by Obama to the outright persecution of whistleblowers trying to do the right thing, we are now seeing the actual unveiling of the incestuous ties between globalist bankers and the present power elite in Washington.

According to a letter sent Tuesday from Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and Representative Daryl Issa, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to ATF Acting Director B. Todd Jones, a key suspect (my word) in the Fast and Furious criminal operation has not only been on paid administrative leave for the last several months, but is concurrently working in the private sector and receiving income from that job as well.

At the center of this latest controversy is William McMahon, former Deputy Assistant Director for Field Operations at the ATF. The findings from the first phase of a three-part congressional investigation that was published on 31 July 2012 stated the following about McMahon:

Though he served as the crucial link between ATF headquarters and the Phoenix Field Division, Bill McMahon admittedly rubber stamped critical documents that came across his desk without reading them. In McMahon’s view, it was not his job to ask any questions about what was going on in the field. McMahon gave false testimony to Congress about signing applications for wiretap intercepts in Fast and Furious (emphasis by this author).

According to Senator Grassley and Representative Issa, McMahon is a full time employee of ATF’s Office of Professional Responsibility, on paid administrative leave and awaiting his retirement (with a six-figure salary and full government benefits). In the interim, however, McMahon is serving as Executive Director of the Global Security and Investigations Group for none other than JP Morgan Chase in the Philippines.

As noted by the letter, this unusual arrangement is “apparently designed to allow Mr. McMahon to reach retirement eligibility while on extended leave…and simultaneously begin a second career before separating from government employment.” The hubris of ATF and government officials is clear, as it obviously awards those involved in the gun running operation while sending a chilling message to anyone who has already or might be thinking about coming forward to expose wrongdoing and criminal behavior at the highest levels of government.

JP Morgan and Obama: Follow the money

Briefly setting aside the convenient employment arrangement between a top government official found to have lied to a congressional investigative body and his reward of a double-dip income arrangement, let’s look at other aspects that few seem to want to discuss about the Obama “regime.”

First, JP Morgan is the largest processor of food stamp benefits in the United States. They process food stamp debit cards in over half of the states and the District of Columbia in the U.S., and are paid for each transaction they process. Ultimately, the more people who become recipients of food stamps (actually, food debit cards), the more revenue that is generated by JP Morgan. When one considers the increasing number of food stamp recipients, it is clear that the JP Morgan’s revenue is increasing. If one understands the workings of the system, their revenue is increasing on the backs of taxpayers.

Looking at the larger picture, this might help explain why JP Morgan was one of Barack Hussein Obama’s largest financial contributors to his 2008 presidential campaign, where they gave a whopping $800,000.00. Perhaps this is one reason that Obama maintains an investment portfolio in JP Morgan Chase, and during his May 12, 2012 appearance on The View, hailed JP Morgan Chase’s CEO Jamie Dimon “as one of the smartest bankers we’ve got.” This, despite the $25 million transfer to JP Morgan under the 2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and a subsequent admission of $2 billion trading losses.

Relevant to the ATF, it is important to note that JP Morgan Chase also administers the credit cards issued to the ATF as well. It should outrage everyone to consider the possibility that murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry had a JP Morgan Chase credit card in his wallet the day he was gunned down, and that one of the very people who bears a level of responsibility for his death lands a job with JP Morgan while continuing to suck on the very chafed teat of the American taxpayer.

What a deal for McMahon, and what a shame for justice. There is a trail of blood leading from the dusty Arizona desert to Pennsylvania Avenue and Wall Street, and yet no one wants to address the bloody footprints.

Canada Free Press

Martha’s Plight and Liberty Farm Under UN Agenda 21

By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh

Fauquier County’s Board of Supervisors in Virginia, presumably Republican controlled, passed an ordinance to force wineries to close at 6 p.m. and to prohibit the sale of food unless the wineries obtain special permits from the zoning administrator.  They fined Liberty Farm for having a pumpkin carving that never took place and for having a birthday party for eight little girls without proper permit.

Do we now need government permission to have private parties on our own property? Apparently so, according to these supervisors, it is considered marketing. “The Fauquier ordinance clearly violates Virginia’s Right to Farm Act, which guarantees agriculture activities of growing and selling.” (Mark J. Fitzgibbons, The Washington Examiner, August 12, 2012)

I heard Martha speak to a gathering of 25 friends, farmers, and vintners from Fauquier County. She brought a basket laden with tomatoes and peppers grown on her Liberty Farm, vegetables that she is no longer allowed to sell. She can give them away to food banks. Through passionate tears, she outlined her childhood dream of owning a farm, finding the perfect land in 2006, and the six year nightmare that followed.

Martha’s 70 acre farm is located in Fauquier County, a rural, agricultural community 15 minutes from Washington, D.C. if the traffic cooperates. The rich soil in the area is perfect for growing grapes and producing wine. Many of the rich farm landowners understand farming as running beautiful horses and leaving the land unspoiled – actual farming is a nuisance and an inconvenience. They are the “penny loafer farmers,” as someone had named them. They are offended by Martha’s farm that actually produces food that people need and enjoy.

Martha bought her farm with an agricultural conservation easement. Since there was no mention of any activities that she could not engage in on her farm, she proceeded to repair the historical barn. She built an apiary, harvested hay, grew herbs, and rescued 165 animals, sold chicken, duck, turkey, emu eggs, candles made from beeswax, birdhouses, and fiber from lamas and alpacas. She had a business license. A lot of hard work went into breathing life into the previously abandoned piece of property. The grass was five feet high and the barn was leaning when she bought the property.

What happened to property rights and economic freedom in our country?

She was told through letters and unauthorized inspections on her property that she could not even cut grass on her property. She had to fence off 20 acres for 2 years because it was considered “hallowed ground” although nobody has ever died there during the Civil War; it had been just an encampment area. Animals and children could not seek shelter from heat or play under a beautiful oak grove. The family was never reimbursed for the fencing or the loss of use of their property for two years – it was a “clerical error.”

A trench was dug to prevent parking on her property because it obscured the view shed. Although holding a business permit and special permit to operate a farm store, her business permit has recently not been renewed by the county. Liberty Farm is the only farm in focus for this environmental harassment. What happened to property rights and economic freedom in our country?

Some Americans are waking up to the insidious UN Agenda 21 across the country. Their legal battles come in many forms at the local and state levels, all involving zoning issues, driven by one ultimate goal, global governance.

UN Agenda 21 “soft law” document has been in place and ratified in Rio, Brazil by 178 countries since 1992. The recommendations that are not legally binding but morally obligatory provide specific rules about local organizations and their practices, limiting everyone’s behavior and freedom.

The idea of global governance, a.k.a. UN Agenda 21, was seeded a hundred years ago.  Americans and their private property are under such a concerted and well-orchestrated attack, that it has become a full assault on private property and redistribution of wealth in the last stages of full implementation.

Would ordinary Americans succeed in deflecting and destroying the evil UN Agenda 21, the multi-headed Hydra? It is a hard question to answer since a good majority of Americans are blissfully unaware of what is going on under their noses nor do they seem to care.

The privileged elites are so convinced they are best suited to rule the world, that they are willing to dedicate their vast fortunes to achieve global governance. Cecil Rhodes, for example, of the Rhodes scholarship, believed that the whole world should be dominated by the British Empire. His vision is no longer a possibility since the once mighty British Empire is now overrun by hostile Muslims thanks to its failed and misguided multi-culturalism.

The modern granddaddy of globalism is Maurice Strong. “Since Cecil Rhoades, …there has been a group of people who actually believe that society is best served when it is managed by a benevolent government populated by the enlightened intelligentsia.” Many Congressmen on both sides of the aisle support globalism, thus Agenda 21. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) published a report in April 2010, detailing the creation of a global currency as the path to global economic stability. (Henry Lamb, Founding Director of Freedom21, Inc.)

The main stream media does not discuss Agenda 21

The main stream media does not discuss Agenda 21 and has labeled those that do tin foil hat conspiracy theorists. Americans believe what they are told by the MSM until they have problems keeping their farms, use their land, build a fence, plant a tree, a bush, use rainwater on their property, build a barn, plant a garden, or use trees for shade to animals. Once property owners run afoul of the many permits they are required to get, they become believers.

There is no end to the asinine rules that various Boards of Supervisors write and implement. These boards are populated by individuals who pretend to be Republicans in order to get elected but are Democrats who enjoy controlling the sheeple minions in their counties.

Liberals love to micro-manage other people’s lives. If you are unlucky and belong to a Home Owner’s Association, you will witness first-hand the self-appointed tyrannical behavior of little people with power to turn your existence upside down on your own land.

Obama’s War on Suburbs

The control does not stop there.  On August 21, 2012, Dick Morris TV discussed “Obama’s War on Suburbs” - how “Obama wants suburban taxes to fund inner city projects and he applies UN agenda 21 to force people to move to the cities. …Barack Obama opposes suburbs. He wants to force everyone into the cities from whence our ancestors fled. He wants the suburban revenue to subsidize the inner cities.

…Because of carbon emissions and global warming, we have to reduce the dependence on the automobile, increase people walking and biking and we have to reshape the way we live with that in mind.” 

The environmentalist concern over carbon emissions and Obama’s funneling resources to the inner cities from the suburbs combine into Obama’s program called regionalism. He has already given regionalism planning grants in Ohio, Virginia, and Florida. Regionalism means getting rid of counties, cities, suburban government and put everything under the regional authority.  The regional entity governs and makes all decisions for a large metropolitan area such as transportation, zoning, land use, education, wetlands, funding, open space regulations, and environmental regulations, all designed to force people from the suburbs into the cities.

Unnecessary traffic jams and congestion on suburban roads, taking access roads out of circulation, blocking zones and roads to traffic, narrowing roads, high and frequent speed bumps, arcane and expensive regulations, expensive gas, road fines, drones hovering over our homes, expensive tolls for roads, are designed to force people to move back into the cities. President Obama wants to fundamentally change the way we live.

Global governance restricts individual freedom

Global governance restricts individual freedom by setting up rigid environmental rules and regulations that set limits on individual behavior, on organizations, and on businesses, covering every facet of human life.

Non-elected bureaucrats and NGOs (non-governmental organizations) set policy and decide what is good for a community through “visioning” committees and grants.

“Visioning” grants come from the EPA and other federal agencies to local communities slated to undergo the visioning or zoning change and to the American Planning Association that would help states develop model legislation favoring their re-zoning plans and re-distribution of property and wealth.

Local planning agencies, an NGO, or ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) start the process of sustainable development, sustainable community, or green growth and request a federal grant.

Who is going to oppose the “greening” of their area and protecting the environment for their children’s future? It is land use control plain and simple by the local, state, or federal government bureaucrats.

Control of land use denies “farmers the right to sell their land to city dwellers because of an urban boundary zone, or greenbelt, or conservation area, or because of the ‘unjust compensation tax.’” Worse yet, farmers themselves are not allowed to use their own land and are fenced in, forbidden to use it or develop it at all.

Water can be denied or cut off to an entire village or town. The installation of septic tanks is forbidden in Maryland, discouraging farmers to build on their own property. The conduits of such restrictions of the behavior of land owners and farmers are the Board of Supervisors through re-zoning and permit.

Martha’s plight is one example of thousands across the country who are fighting their local zoning czars for economic freedom, the use of their land, property rights, free of intrusive, photographed, unauthorized, and illegal, often in the middle of the night land and home inspections, and the freedom to engage in encumbered agricultural activities from environmental groups funded by wealthy globalists who would rather see humans disappeared or moved into government approved urban ghettoes where they can be better controlled and herded.

Canada Free Press

Will Obama Keep Power 'by Any Means Necessary'?

August 21, 2012
By Stella Paul

 Let's go there: if Obama thinks he's losing, will he allow safe and fair elections on November 6?  And if he does lose, will he peacefully turn over power to Mitt Romney on January 20, 2013?  Or will he cling to power "by any means necessary," as a highly placed insider alleges?

Now, I'm truly sorry to raise such disgusting, un-American, crazy-sounding questions, but, alas, they're not crazy, and I've got a disquieting amount of evidence.  The Democrats have already accused Romney of murdering a woman with cancer, financial felonies, and not filing taxes for ten years -- the last charge delivered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the Senate floor, on the basis of absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

By Democrat standards, I've got enough proof to put away Obama, et al. for life without parole.

Whatever chicanery Obama and his investors may be contemplating, it will probably unfold against some gargantuan crisis, manufactured or otherwise.  So cast your mind back to September 11, 2001, the day of the New York mayoral primary. 

In the chaos after the attacks, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who was term-limited from running, pleaded that his leadership was essential and that he should be granted an extra three months in office after his term ran out on January 1.  Giuliani's unprecedented power-grab was rightfully scorned by his eventual successor, Michael Bloomberg.  So what did Bloomberg do when he ran into term limits?  He deployed his multi-billion-dollar fortune to manipulate the law and buy himself a quasi-legal third term, claiming that only he had the expertise to handle the 2008 financial crisis.

My point?  Politicians a great deal more conventional than Obama have loathed giving up power, and they have used crises and unethical machinations to try to keep it.

Now, let's look at just some of the disturbing evidence that indicates that Obama and his investors are plotting something big:

Super-High-Level Trial Balloons

USA Today reported that on September 27, 2011, Governor Beverly Perdue, Democrat of North Carolina, told a Rotary Club audience, "I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover[.] ... You want people who don't worry about the next election."  When outrage greeted her suggestion, she retreated to the standard defense: she was just joking.  What a kidder!

Meanwhile, that same month, Peter Orszag, Obama's former director of the Office of Management and Budget, published an article in The New Republic titled "Too Much of A Good Thing: Why We Need Less Democracy."  In it, he posited that the country was too polarized; hence, "radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic."

Please note that these suggestions to suspend elections and radically reduce democratic control did not come from basement-dwelling bloggers.  They came from the governor of the very state in which the Democrats are holding their national convention and from one of Obama's most prominent Cabinet members.  Their close timing suggests that these ideas were circulating at the highest levels of the Democrat power elite.

"Whom Does the Government Intend to Shoot?"

That's the question recently posed by retired Major General Jerry Curry in the Daily Caller, in light of horrifying reports that the Social Security Administration is buying 174,000 rounds of hollow-point bullets for distribution to 41 locations in the U.S.

According to Major General Curry, Social Security's ammo spree follows the purchase by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of 46,000 rounds of hollow-point ammunition.  Will they be shooting fish in a barrel?

Most terrifying of all, Major General Curry reports that the Department of Homeland Security ordered 750 million rounds of hollow-point ammunition in March, then subsequently ordered an additional 750 million rounds, including bullets capable of penetrating walls.

"This is enough ammunition to empty five rounds into the body of every living American citizen," writes Major General Curry, who wonders what plan might require "so many dead Americans."

I strongly suggest that you read Major General Curry's article for yourself, so you can appreciate the full horror of what he describes.  After pointing out that Congress has done nothing to investigate these weapon purchases, Major General Curry, a 40-year veteran, concludes with these chilling words:

This is a deadly serious business. I hope I'm wrong, but something smells rotten. And If the Congress isn't going to do its duty and investigate this matter fully, the military will have to protect the Constitution, the nation, and our citizens.

900-plus Executive Orders

Obama may not be fond of governing, but he certainly does enjoy issuing executive orders -- more than 900 so far.  As American Thinker's Warren Beatty points out, these little-reported edicts reveal an all-too-predictable pattern: concentrating all national power and resources in Obama's hands, in case of "emergency."

So far, Obama has granted himself the right to control all transportation, including highways, airports, seaports, and railroads, and all modes of communication, storage facilities, electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.

Should you resist any of these emergency measures, rest assured that the U.S. government is now well supplied with bullets.

Openly War-Gaming against American Citizens

A recent issue of the well-respected Small Wars Journal featured an article titled "Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A 'Vision' of the Future."  Written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert, the article helpfully game-played, in full operational detail, how the Army would destroy a local Tea Party insurrection.

The authors claim that should Tea Party rebels take over a City Hall, "Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas"; therefore, "the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment."

The brazenness of this scheme for the U.S. military to kill Americans created a small, temporary stir.  The Washington Times editorialized, "This is a dark, pessimistic and wrongheaded view of what military leaders should spend their time studying."  The Washington Times also noted:

A professor at the Joint Forces Staff College was relieved of duty in June for uttering the heresy that the United States is at war with Islam. The Obama administration contended the professor had to be relieved because what he was teaching was not U.S. policy. Because there is no disclaimer attached to the Small Wars piece, it is fair to ask, at least in Col. Benson's case, whether his views reflect official policy regarding the use of U.S. military force against American citizens.

Active Partnership with America's Foreign Enemies

Many spectacles have enlivened presidential elections over the years, but 2012 marks the first time that high-level military personnel have felt compelled to publicly tell the president to stop leaking national security secrets.

A group of former U.S. intelligence and Special Forces operatives created a 22-minute video, "Dishonorable Disclosures," to shame Obama into shutting up about priceless intelligence related to bin Laden's death, British-Saudi penetration of al-Qaeda, and the Israeli-American Stuxnet virus attack on Iran's nuclear program.

Normally, presidents don't want to endanger American citizens and military personnel by leaking top-secret information -- but aiding and abetting the enemy is apparently all in a day's work for Obama.

And so, if he wants to stir up trouble before the election, either at home or abroad, he'll have plenty of enemy partners to help.  First, he's got the Russians, to whose president he was caught whispering on a hot mic about missile defense, "This is my last election[.] ... After my election, I have more flexibility."

Second, Obama is this close to the Muslim Brotherhood, who are world-class experts on unleashing political violence.  Obama helped the Muslim Brotherhood ascend to power in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and Libya, and he's placed its operatives in the highest levels of the American government.  Surely, such clever characters as Huma Abedin, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's deputy chief of staff, and Mohamed Elibiary, a Homeland Security Advisory committee member, can be trusted to think up some exciting turmoil to apply where needed.

And finally, close to home, Obama can rely on the Sinaloa drug cartel in Mexico, whom he supplied with thousands of guns.  Gratefully, they used their American taxpayer-funded AK-47s to wipe out rival drug gangs and to murder Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.  Attorney General Eric Holder is presently in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents on Operation Fast and Furious, and Obama ("President Transparency") has claimed executive privilege to withhold them.

Sending hordes of expensively armed drug gang members across our border should be a snap, now that Obama has crippled our Border Patrol.  Just think of all the headline-grabbing distractions these energetic young men can unleash!

Active Partnership with Domestic Criminal Groups

When Louis Farrakhan met Ahmadinejad: now there's a romance made in the bowels of hell.  Toss in the head of the New Black Panthers and fifty radical imams, and you've got the "Beast Axis" that was forged in a Manhattan hotel on September 27, 2010, according to The Blaze.

New Black Panther Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz boasted on Black Panther Radio that he "stands on solid ideological ground" with "His Excellency, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad," who understands "the dynamics and the politics of world revolution."

Apparently, Obama approves of these antics, because his attorney general, Eric Holder, dropped charges against the New Black Panthers, even though they were caught on tape allegedly intimidating Philadelphia voters in the 2008 elections.  Naturally, Holder's Department of Justice then lied about its actions, covering up its political motivations.

Holder specifically protected King Samir Shabazz, who now serves as national field marshal for the New Black Panthers.  Shabazz spearheads the Panthers' ambitious new plan to "create inner city militaries that would go into nurseries and kill white babies and murder white people in the street."

Let's hope this "inner city military" is not what candidate Obama mysteriously referred to in 2008 when he pledged, "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set.  We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Imagine, for one monstrous moment, the destructive potential of this burgeoning alliance between the Obama-protected New Black Panthers, Obama's old Chicago associate Louis Farrakhan, and the genocidally obsessed Ahmadinejad.  If your blood didn't run cold, you weren't imagining hard enough.

A Tsunami of Voter Fraud

On June 15, 2012, Obama bypassed Congress and issued de facto amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens.  Suddenly, whole new vistas of voter fraud opened up to the Democrats.  Admittedly, they've got to ramp up quickly for November, but this gang should prove up to the challenge.

Helping matters along, Holder is busy suing states that require photo ID to vote and attempting to disenfranchise the military.  Together, these well-coordinated efforts should provide Obama with the means to pull off staggering amounts of voter fraud.

"By Any Means Necessary"

If all else fails, Obama and his investors may be prepared to keep power "By Any Means Necessary."  This information comes from an uncannily predictive website called The Ulsterman Report.  Those who have followed its fascinating interviews over the last couple of years with two anonymous sources, Wall Street Insider and White House Insider, have seen its scoops confirmed again and again. 

Well over a year ahead of any other media, The Ulsterman Report was informing readers that Valerie Jarrett ran the White House and that Obama was strangely disengaged from the actual tasks of governing.  It predicted the emergence of obscure figures -- Kamala D. Harris, who's now attorney general of California, and her brother-in-law, Tony West, the newly named acting associate attorney general at the Department of Justice, who's being groomed as Holder's successor.

Most crucially, shortly after the bin Laden operation, the Ulsterman Report revealed that Valerie Jarrett had canceled three previous bin Laden raids.  That information now has been confirmed by Richard Miniter in his book, Leading from Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him.

Recently, a source known as Military Insider (MI) met with Ulsterman (UM) at the urging of Wall Street Insider (WSI) to issue a warning.  A section of their conversation follows below:

MI: Approximately two years ago...not quite two years ago...I received information pertaining to an election contingency plan.  For 2012.  After the 2010 elections there were particular operatives...specific to the Obama administration and Democratic Party leadership...indicating an overwhelming need to secure a second term for President Obama.  That document's title was...(pauses)

WSI: He can be trusted - I give you my word.  Please proceed.

MI: That document's title was "By Any Means Necessary".  It was unofficial - but we know it came directly from channels specific to the administration.  We confirmed that.

UM: What channels?  Who are you talking about?

MI: We believe it to have been authored by Mr. Sunstein.  Reviewed and approved by Valerie Jarrett.  Preparations for implementation are being done in part by Mr. Leo Gerard coordinating with...with high ranking officials within the Department of Justice, Homeland Security...and...the U.S. military.

We could dismiss the anonymous Military Insider's warning as overheated, unsourced hysteria.  Or we could examine it as one more piece of evidence to place alongside all the evidence I've described above.

The greatest asset of Obama and his investors has been their warp-speed audacity.  We're too stunned to believe what's happening in front of our eyes, and too embarrassed to mention it.  Who wants to speak up and be ridiculed as an unhinged paranoid, marching with the tinfoil hat brigade?

But our best bet -- perhaps our only bet -- is to frankly confront this ugly reality.  As Iran prepares to go nuclear and the global economy teeters, any number of "national emergencies" can suddenly erupt, demanding unprecedented measures by Obama to "save" us.  We must be prepared with skepticism, outrage, and defiance of any actions to deprive us of our Constitutional rights.

America remains the last best hope on earth.  And We the People must keep our power, by any means necessary.

correction: erroneous link to executive orders removed

correction: reference to work brigades and relocation centers removed

Write Stella Paul at stellapundit@aol.com.

American Thinker